They let anybody vote wrote on Nov 17, 2008 5:14 AM:Rita McGranahan and Jean Carroll expose the flaw inherent in the democratic system..delusional individuals are given the right to vote.

Fried brains wrote on Nov 17, 2008 5:22 AM:Do you recall the t.v. commercial which showed an egg frying and the voice over saying "this is your brain on drugs"? They should remake that commercial except, instead of a frying egg, show Jean Carroll's brain and announce "this is your brain on conservative talk radio".

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 17, 2008 5:29 AM:The Dark Ages are Over
The published letter from Irvin Forbing repeats the same tired refrain he has been singing for years in his campaign to stand athwart the progress of SCIENCE and yell "STOP!"
He continues to want us to believe that climate scientists working in research labs or universities are somehow getting rich, though he can't point his finger to any of the scientists who have gotten rich off their PEER-REVIEWED consensus on the subject. In contrast, we can easily point to the CEO's and stockholders of energy companies who have indeed made off like bandits. Literally.
Sorry, Forbing, but science moves forward. You have tried to obstruct progress in biochemistry (evolution), climate science and stem cell research. The American people are fed up with your war against science and you have been defeated. Go on, yell and scream as much as you want.
Starting January 20, the war against science (climate science, evolution and stem-cell research) is over. We will have a new President and new Congress, including many moderate Republicans, who will have a powerful supermajority when it comes to issues of reason and science.
The Dark Ages are over.
Sunshine again pierces the darkness.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Ron wrote on Nov 17, 2008 5:45 AM:Of course, the Left wants to silence the opposition. Isn't it always that way, Rita McGranahan?

It is a total lie, as told by the left, that they are the tolerant one's, they are the only side who has used their power to shut down opposition political speech.

From this American's perspective, that places them directly into the camp's of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and other authoritarianism governments. Which many today think would be just fine, because they defend these regimes all the time.

Ron wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:12 AM:Ya really gotta chuckle when you read a letter like this one by Al Arnold.

Obviously, the victim of a supposed "journalist" Al Bore. A "journalist sooo bad, a judge had to correct his investigative journalism before it could be taught in classrooms. In fact, disclaimers of "opinion" had to be inserted before each showing of his movie.
But, Al Arnold claims: "Our little planet and our country are both in serious trouble. We have all heard of the very real threat of global warming and its catastrophic consequences (although some of us are still in denial about it)."
Yes, that last part is about us, the deniers, the "bitter clingers" who have been equated with holocaust deniers. Yes, that's just another way the left shows us it's love & tolerance, by calling you a holocaust denier.
World global temperatures have dropped for almost the last two years, but that does not stop those who believe that CO2 drives global temperatures.
And it is because, facts don't matter.
And global warming has become the Left's new religion.

Now, as to these "high paying green jobs", Many, in fact, most of them simply will not materialize. The fact is the Left does not like "industry."
Ideologues within the Leftist community would love to see all of these jobs go away.
All one needs to do is listen to what NObama said about the coal industry: "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
So, be on notice...
If the Left targets your job for elimination, they will say it is for the greater good, and part of your sacrifice.

jvc wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:22 AM:As part of American Education Week:
my comment is this...where are the
education associations that are not a part of some self-interest group but rather education associations that exist for the concerns of students?

Alf wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:27 AM:The letter from Judi Cunningham makes several mistakes.
1) She tries to compare sex between 2 consenting homosexual adults to "incest, pedophilia, bestiality, pornography and prostitution". Perversion is making the comparison.
2) She declares "Without traditional marriage, there would be no next generation, no procreation."
I guess that she has not heard of anyone EVER having a baby out of wedlock or single-parenthood.
3) She states "The majority of the people in the state of California believe in the Bible and in traditional marriage."
That may or may not be true, I shan't argue that point.
HOWEVER, the majority can vote to approve anything or ban anything and if they voted and approved something that violates either the California Constitution or the United States Constitution, it WILL be rightfully struck down when challenged in court.
Judi Cunningham is free to have and practice her religious beliefs, if she and others vote to take away the right of equal protection under the law OR ANY RIGHT from any group or minority, their attempt will be stopped.
Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:29 AM:Happy days are coming, says John O'Dwyer.

And lookie what he's all excited about:

"Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,... food stamps program, etc., have been saved, and happy days will be here again beginning Jan. 20, 2009."

In short, Gimme.. some Gimme's!!!
So, the bribe musta worked.
I heard Fidel gave away free rice cookers to his voters.

Hey John. Do yourself a favor, and try googling "The party of the people", just for kicks.
These are just some of the results, Here.. I'll help you get started:
Sandinista Party,
Movement for the Fifth Republic (MVR),
Movement toward Socialism (Bolivia).

Ron wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:40 AM:Marriage makes next generation possible...

Yep, that's the way I look at it, Judi Cunningham.
As a believer in real science, Darwinism.. I think it's rather obvious.

Ron wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:48 AM:The problem with that thought, Del Davis.. is the Left does not belive that, at all.

They don't believe: "I have the "right" to do anything I want to do, if when and where what I do does not require anything in thought or deed from others. Frankly, I couldn't care less how others conduct their life in private. I don't give a whit who or what people have sex with, or how perverse it may or may not be. Just don't try and require others to sanction and validate it."

You see, that sentiment is a more Libertine in nature, whereas, the Left leans more authoritarian in practise.

Chuck wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:51 AM:>>>Remorse for 'Yes on Prop 8' vote>>>

To make up for your remorse, I'll go into double rejoice mode. And when your third grader comes home wearing a dress, with his SB777 paper where he chose to be a girl, through the coaching and indoctrination of the racketeers, you'll change your mind again

But Ron wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:51 AM:Were Adam and Eve married?

Ron wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:53 AM:four judges...

Now, doesn't that thought just scare the be-jesus out of you?
It sure does me.
but not my leftists friends.
They seem to love Judicial Oligarchy, and the tyranny that will surely follow.

Chuck wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:54 AM:>>where are the education associations that are not a part of some self-interest group but rather education associations that exist for the concerns of students?>>

LOL, just walk though a mall or stop at a food court and you'll see that none exist. By the time they get out, they'll be indoctrinated into turning away careers with those evil, rich corporation, to keep that high paying job serving burritos

Ron wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:56 AM:Answer to my good friend...
"jvc" @6:22 AM,

They do not exist.

"...where are the
education associations that are not a part of some self-interest group but rather education associations that exist for the concerns of students?"

Students are NEVER represented, although.. many claim to speak for them.

Vista Granny wrote on Nov 17, 2008 7:07 AM:Judi Cunningham must live under a rock. I find her letter alarming - that people who believe as she does exist. As Alf points out, has she never heard of a child being born out of wedlock? Perhaps not -makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Ron wrote on Nov 17, 2008 7:12 AM:Exactly... Jean Carroll!

I also saw that particular interview on the Charlie Rose show, and they did use "Creepy".

They also said, now we will find out who NObama really is.
Amazing, and.. telling on themselves for not doing their jobs as journalists.
But.. what else is new between the Left & their pets in the press?

But Vista Granny wrote on Nov 17, 2008 7:20 AM:Judi Cunningham is a prime example of why we have separation of church and state. If you found her letter to be alarming, what Sarah Palin espoused should have been beyond shocking. Yes, it makes me wonder all right!
May you have a mild and mellow Monday.

tjefferson wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:35 AM:Judi Cunningham writes "without traditional marriage, there would be no next generation, no procreation." She doesn't seem to know that humans have been procreating for considerably more than 100,000 years. Biblical history goes back only about 6,000 years, just a fraction of the time humans have been in existance. The human race did quite well having children without the approval of any Bible based religion for a very long time before Adam and Eve.

Marriage and procreation wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:35 AM:As I look around the plant and animal kingoms, and around the human world, and around human history, I am impressed by how well all have done procreating with or without marriage. On the other hand, I'm not sure we can find many creatures or historical humans who have done a lousier job being good parents. The human child and the human family was never designed to operate as one or two working people and the kids are on their own. That's the sin and the crime against the "family values", folks. It sure as heck isn't about sexual orientation, it's about what kind of constant, predictable, loving adults surround, teach, and nurture our children.

Media Bias wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:53 AM:Let me see if I've got this straight.
Letter-writer Jean Carroll and blogger Ron at 7:12 a.m. note that certain media personalities used terms like "creepy" and other name-calling insults to describe the man that has just been resoundingly elected to the presidency of the United States.
Their conclusion?
That these childish, name-calling media elites are, what?
Biased in favor of Obama!

I guess that explains a lot about how some conservatives think.
Kind of like the moralists who complain about gay promiscuity but don't want them to get married.
Go figure.

avowed wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:59 AM:I see the religious bigots are once again inspired to express their hatred of homosexuals in today's letters section. This is the obvious outcome of Proposition 8. When gay marriage is once again legal in California (and hopefully the entire nation) we will once again be bombarded with invectives from people brought up to believe in sin and depravity instead of love and equality. Gay people are not demonized this way in other enlightened Western nations. The reason our country behaves this way is obvious - fundamental Christianity. The solution is also obvious. Don't allow your children to be brainwashed by those that hate.

Oooops -- Again wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:03 AM:Oooops – Again

Al Gores (and the UNs) scientific Guru, Dr. James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) announced that this past October was the warmest October EVER!.

NOT!

Hansen’s group had to withdraw their claim – it seems that an analysis by global warming skeptic Meteorologist James Watt (Google Watts Up With That) found an ‘anomaly.”

It seems that the Russian temperature reports from September had been completely duplicated over to the Russian October dates. (Aren’t you glad that NASA is careful?)

What brought this to Watts’ attention was that the United States October results were the 70th warmest over the past 124 years making the US a pretty cold October. In fact the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recorded 63 local snowfall records, and 115 lowest temperatures for the month in the US..

Further, Tibet had their worst snow storm “ever” last month.

So GISS had to issue an Oooops – again. It is a good thing that there are skeptics around to keep the Global Warming Theorists semi-honest!

Orientation not lifestyle wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:28 AM:It's absurd and dishonest to refer to a homosexual "lifestyle". Gays have just as many "lifestyles" as straight people do. A homosexual might get up in the morning, go to work, and return to the partner and kids like any straight person. Same lifestyle, different sexual orientation. Using the word "lifestyle" is dishonest, because it promotes the ideas that (1) homosexuality is a choice, since people choose their lifestyles; and (2) homosexuals' lives are mostly quite similar to one anothers. Both of these are false. They share a lifestyle as much as lefthanded people do.

PMFJI wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:56 AM:Cunningham: Her letter indicates beyond any shadow of a doubt that her conception of life on this planet is based on bible believers. Her first error is that the law of the this land is biblical. It is not. Our law of the land are the Federal and State Constitutions. Our country is a Republic. It is not a majority rule country. Even our national elections are by state. The take all winners, in general, take a delegation to the Electoral College. The Constitution is meant to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. All those previsions mentioned and attributed to homosexuals can also be attributed to heterosexuals. In fact, there are more heterosexuals practicing them simply based upon the mathematical of numbers and the law of probability. Christians had to put their foot down? Eventually, DOMA and Prop 8 will be shown to be unconstitutional per Equal Protection for all citizens. Lastly, it is incorrect that all the voters for Prop 8 are Christians voting the morality of their religion as the law of the land. I voted against Prop 8 predicated upon a human rights issue and the equal protection clause. Voting upon issues based upon religion is dangerous. Per haps, someday, you may have a different region becoming dominant in this country. it may be interesting to see the so called Christians really howl. Too bad, the majority rules against them.

Yeah Right wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:56 AM:Sure Huntley, I believe you voted yes on 8. Is this the new tactic of the no on 8 crowd. "Well if he now feels bad I must feel bad too and now I can come out and tell everyone how I really feel" If you were so easily duped then lets meet up, I have some ocean front property in Arizonia I have for sale.

But Marriage and procreation wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:01 AM:The first rule of the sort of religious people who are for Prop 8 is that facts are either irrelevant or "the work of the devil" or don't apply to them. Such things as logic, rational thought, reason and facts do not phase them.

Fried brains got it partially right "this is your brain on religion and conservative talk radio".

Not all religions wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:01 AM:As opposed as I am to self-styled religious people imposing their beliefs and standards on the rest of society, I think it's important to point out that not all religions do this. Judaism, for example, has virtually no interest in "converting" people to their faith, and they make it hard to do so. Even more of an example is Buddhism, where people of any other religions are also welcome and no effort is made to rule society. Christianity, in most of its forms, is one of those that actively and fervently believe in converting people. This, not the faith itself, is the problem IMHO. When I read the words of Jesus, I am thoroughly moved by the love and forgiveness and humanity therein. Sadly, though, it's been a long and terrible history of insisting that others convert. But religious ideas often are very beautiful & of great comfort. So celebrate and worship together, and leave it at that. Please.

To Huntley wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:04 AM:I admit I had some doubts, but I did vote YES on 8. After the vote and seeing the reaction of the NO on 8 crowd I am now glad I did voted the way I did. The true colors of the gay rights crowd have been exposed for what they truly stand for. Physical attacks, vandalism, anarchy, attacks on police, attacks on churches, attacking neighbors, no respect for the law or free speech or differing opinions. Went with my gut instinct and it was right.

to to Huntley wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:41 AM:You, like Bill, make no sense on this Prop 8 matter. I assume that you considered voting No on 8 based on the idea that it was a matter of equality under the law. But regardless, you are taking the actions of a miniscule minority to justify your opinion of a very important legal and ethical principle. You are willing to take those actions and say that these are the "true colors of the gay rights crowd". Methinks these criminals who were violent and should be arrested served as a perfect excuse for what is really your plain, old-fashioned homophobia. How else to explain your willingness to abandon a principle based on the behavior of a few hoodlums?

More Cherry picking wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:44 AM:"To Huntley" justifies turning his back on all gays because of the behavior of the worst supporters of No on 8 (who might not even be gay). Hmmm, by this logic, I'd have to say that because a couple of our Marines went outside the law and raped and killed a civilian, I can no longer support the military. Because a rabid anti-abortionist bombed a clinic, I will have to be pro-choice. Because a pro football player beat up his wife, I will no longer attend any football games. I assume that because all these examples are just like yours, you will also stop supporting the military, pro-life, and NFL. Right?

But To Huntley wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:01 AM:I guess that you would sit idly by, saying nothing and doing nothing if your right to get married had been taken away by 53 percent of the voting people.
No way! You would be up in arms the same as the No on 8 people are right now, if not, maybe more.
You sit there with your rights and you deny them to others only because they are homosexual and you don't approve of homosexuality. Don't lie about it, you will use any excuse you can and my actions or the actions of others are only your newest excuse to do exactly what you would do anyway.

esteban wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:09 AM:Rita couldn't be more correct. The left, who say they are for equality, the Constitution, free speech...etc are really against all that. If you disagree with the left, you are a bigot and your view is hate speech. The left will be the downfall of this once great nation. They will do more damage than Dubya ever dreamed of.

bodecea wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:12 AM:To "To Huntley"

And now I will no longer support the rights of religions due to Rev Phelps.

Gee, this logic is fun!

To John from Beth wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:13 AM:Really, all saved!? What a fool. Too bad the fools outnumbered the wise

To Jean Carroll wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:14 AM:No need to panic. Obama will do just fine. Besides, your post is nothing but a repeat of some journalist's opinions. We all have our own opinions. Big deal. Again, try not to panic.

immorality is all over wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:25 AM:people chastising morality and supporting perversion ) are proof of the coming of Christ soon. Under Christ there will be no more abortions, gay flaunting parades, brothels, and war. The left's assault sagainst religion only make us stronger. We know Who wins in the end.

Chuck wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:26 AM:If the UnConstitutionality of 8 is so clear cut, I'd agree to put it back before the CA Supreme Court with a proviso that in order to overthrow the direct will and vote of the people, the courts decision must be unanimous. Is there any reason the activists and racketeers would not agree with that???

bodecea wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:02 PM:Is there a constitutional requirement that the court be unanimous? Is there a constitutional requirement that a law be constitutional?

Therein lies the rub.

oh esteban wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:05 PM:Esteban continues to insist that when people disagree with him, that proves they are hateful intolerants. No, esteban, they are merely disagreeing with you. They are not trying to silence you. You seem to say that "if you disagree with me, you are intolerant". That's ridiculous.

bodecea wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:07 PM:To "immorality is all over",

What will your Christ do about Mardi Gras? about priests molesting children? about fathers/step-fathers molesting their daughters? about Spring break wet t-shirt contests? about "I Married a Millionare" like tv shows.

I remember a parable about those who would point out the mote in their neighbor's eye show look to the beam in their own first? I'm thinking that is an apt parable here.

ENOUGH wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:28 PM:The solution to this whole debate over gay marriage is to make civil unions the equal of marriage. The only difference? The words "marriage" and "civil union". Have the unions recognized in all 50 states. Both sides are happy and citizens can be productive members of society instead of protesting out in front of churches. Enough said!

Looking Glass wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:31 PM:Regarding the global warming debate - even if temperatures rise (after all we can do, you gotta factor in natural causes), I believe human innovation will save the day. If we phased out DDT and CFCs, we can adapt to a hotter, better and smarter environment.

"What the mind can conceive, mankind can achieve." -attributed to Leonardo Da Vinci

to immorality wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:33 PM:I think it was Nietzsche, more than a hundred years ago, who pointed out what a religion of resentment Christianity is. He showed how often Christians have said, "You're on top now, but in the afterlife, you are going to suffer, and we're going to have the last laugh! Just wait! You'll get yours!" No wonder this has been a faith so attractive to people, offering a God who will carry out all our vengeful wishes for us. "Immorality is all over" is a wonderful example of Nietzsche's point.

Ace wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:36 PM:Congratulations Obama supporters.

I avoided the layoffs that I have spoken of by re-negotiating a labor deal that forced workers to take a $6.00 per hour paycut. My actions were nothing more than any of you would take if you got advanced notice that someone was going to rob your home and installed an alarm and locks on your doors. Im preventing outright theft of my money and making sure that those who voted for Obama are the ones paying for my tax increase. Thats called democracy and you won so congratulations on your "victory".

This is called the spoils of victory.

This amounts to a $12,000.00 per year pay cut in exchange for a lousy $1000.00 tax cut.

With stupid financial decisions like this, its no wonder that Im rich and my workers are not. I was able to negotiate with the unions blessing as the union was far more concerned with losing union jobs than they were the employees losing earning power. They didnt care about their workers and never have. I told you that I wouldnt allow the voters to allow Obama to plunder my wealth. Go start your own company if you want more. That way, you can take the risk and all the wealth will be yours.

Thats how I did it.

The economic ignorance of so many in here astounds me.

Did they really think that something else would happen?

The unintended consequences always get you but this is what you voted for.

Dont blame me.

Alf wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:37 PM:Well, "Chuck" at 11:26AM,
require a unanimous State Supreme Court to overturn a 53 to 47 vote? Especially if Prop. 8 is in violation of the State Constitution?
Did you go over a big bump on the way to the office?
I'm glad that you didn't write the Constitution. Then again, I'm fairly certain that you're glad I didn't write it.
Regards, Alf.

TOOO immorality is all over wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:43 PM:Yes, we know who wins in the end, it's the one with the most toys.
Actually, the truth is that Constitution trumps religion in matters of the law.
When is this rapture again?
5-5-55 or 6-6-66 or 7-7-77 or 8-8-88 or 9-9-99 or 10-10-10??
Your power over others is decreasing by the second. Get used to it.

But ENOUGH wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:48 PM:I'm with you. Do you honestly believe that the yes people will allow even that?

Sonny wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:49 PM:Sorry DD Wiz
One can tell orthodoxy by several statements; “ad hominem attacks”, “it’s fact”, “all scientists agree”, there is a “consensus”, “no reputable scientist”, etc.
You berate Forbing with no logical input. You don’t tell that embryonic stem cells have produced inadequate results, while adult ones have; you cannot give any successful testing of evolution (required in science); you apparently do not know that Al Gore is not a scientist and has made a bundle off carbon credits (which will have no effect on CO2 reduction, according to those giving input to the IPCC); and you are not aware of the socialism that is rapidly approaching by the repeated denigrations of our Republic (which you may not understand), and we are indeed coming into a social “dark ages”, which I hope you enjoy.

gracchus wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:54 PM:in your communique of 5:45 a.m., ron, you have some harsh criticism of the left, asserting that they find congenial hugo chavez and fidel castro. no doubt you are right. i do not doubt that some extremists would countenance censorship.

on the other hand, i can tell you that i plowed through the 12 volumes of THE LEFT BEHIND SERIES by tim lehaye and jerry jenkins, and anti-semitism, racism, and homophobia dripped from their pages. perhpas they would find congenial the moral atmosphere of dubai, whence an adolescent french boy fled last year after having been gang raped by local men, lest he be charged for moral turpitude. but i cannot say.

i can say that if foolish leftists want to sing the praises of chavez and castro, they should be able to do so. and if lehaye and jenkins want to make snide remarks about jews, write sterotypical descriptions of blacks, and demonize gays, let them have at it.

just be aware, ron, the left has no monopoly on fools. and a liberal is much more likely to tolerate them than a conservative. and part of that toleration is an abiding opposition to censorship.

and might i recommend, ron, concerning your adventures on the internet at 6:29 a.m., that you might go to a libary and actually read a book or two about a.c. sandino and the movement which bears his name? these websites might be good in pointing the way to a deeper knowledge of a particular topic. but if a person relies on them alone, his knowledge will be as superficial as your communiques.

Chuck wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:59 PM:>>>I think it was Nietzsche, more than a hundred years ago,>>>
I think he played middle linebacker for the Packers 30 years ago, and I'm fairly certain he never said anything Christian like during a game

Oh Michael wrote on Nov 17, 2008 1:05 PM:Arab royal sues King of Pop

Michael Jackson is taken to court by a Bahrainian sheik who gave him millions.

Please pay attention to what is real in life.

Karl wrote on Nov 17, 2008 1:12 PM:But ENOUGH @ 12:48 PM:

I hope so, this is getting old fast.

To Yeah Right wrote on Nov 17, 2008 1:12 PM:Where is Arizonia?

Chuck wrote on Nov 17, 2008 1:15 PM:I've gotta say, now I've heard it all. The news is reporting that "N.Y. attorney general urges Citigroup executives to forgo bonuses"". I'd like to know what criteria they use to award bonuses. Those thieving crooks (imho) pludered a company, took billions from our treasury and are now waging a jihad on their credit card holders to grab extra fees and charges. I understand how that would be bonusable, if I were a liberals, but I aint

to- but to Huntley wrote on Nov 17, 2008 2:04 PM:You forget that the yes on 8 crowd had their right and vote taken away by 4 liberal judges over throwing the will of the people after the passage of prop 22. When that happened, yes I was outraged, but did you see any demonstrations in the streets by even "a small minority"? NO, we addressed things in a civil manner by getting the signatures necessary to have a ballot issue for a vote of the people. Even with all the confusion about what "yes" or "no" meant the yes on 8 crowd won a victory no matter how short that victory may be. The demonstrations by the "few" who take it too far are reflective of the NO on 8 community as a whole and you can try and deny that, but the NO on 8 crowd is losing support each day this occurs.

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 17, 2008 2:11 PM:Flat Earth Failures
The posts from "Oooops -- Again" (9:03am) and "Sonny" (12:49pm) sadly show the need to pity the poor gullible victims of the war on science by propagandist supported by those who profit in the BILLIONS from sales of the non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS that put green in their pockets, but not in the environment over which we maintain stewardship.

Between the two, at least "Oooops" tries to show some scientific basis, but as we have seen so many times in this forum, simply dismisses serious scientist such as Goddard at NASA, and confirms lack of even basic scientific knowledge. He demonstrates perfect examples of a non-sequitur -- giving a premise, then deriving a conclusion that does not logically follow from that premise. In this case, points that have made repeatedly in this forum, are that usual Arctic temperatures are BELOW what is optimal for snow formation, so increased snowfall and ice thickness in that part of the world reflects warming temperatures. Again, the data about polar bears cites world census figures rather than specific at-risk Arctic areas. Arguing with those who start with pre-determined conclusions against scientific consensus is as futile as arguing against religion-based creationists or little children who always have a way of explain how a literal Santa Claus comes down every chimney in the world in one 24-hour day.

Sadly, "Sonny" is much worse. He is so incapable of addressing substance that he has to entirely fabricate out of whole cloth statements he attributes to me but which are not even in my post (5:29am -- check it out for yourselves), including "ad hominem attacks", “it's fact”, "all scientists agree," and "no reputable scientist." The FACT is that not one of these words or phrases occurs in my post. "Sonny" simply LIED. "Sonny" simply made that up, as he does all his science. The only one he got right is that I mentioned "CONSENSUS," and I have verified this many times in this forum in referring to the universal scientific agreement when it comes to objective, peer-reviewed scientific and academic journals, as distinguished from those bought and paid for by petrodollars.
As for testing of evolution, there is much objective, replicable derivation from direct observation of evidence and, in any case, "Sonny" (or Forbing he defends) cannot apply their same standard to their alternative explanation, Genesis.
He also misrepresents the status of embryonic stem cell research.
More fabrications from "Sonny": He says that I "do not know that Al Gore is not a scientist." Obviously not a regular reader of the letters page or this forum, he simply jumps to conclusions and, again, GETS IT WRONG. If he had actually read the letters or this forum he would know I have never cited Gore as a scientist (but have cited legitimate credentialed experts from peer-reviewed sources), and have specifically noted that Gore is a public policy administrator and NOT A SCIENTIST.
The level of complete dishonesty and outright fabrication in this post confirms the pathetic level of desperation by those trying to debunk real science in the name of their petty superstitions and/or oil-funded special interests.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Question to No on 8 crowd wrote on Nov 17, 2008 2:36 PM:I agree with the NO on 8 crowd. Many of those who want to keep marriage between a man and a woman are: homophobic, bigots, racist,haters, denying equal rights for all. BUT if this is all true why are you working so hard to be just like them? Why not come up with a new name for your civil unions like: "Superior Heavenly Union", "A higher Union", "Above the Crowd Union", "Higher Love Union". Why be just like the rest who ony want to be married come up with your own name and be better then the rest. Just a suggestion.

Christians do n ot approve wrote on Nov 17, 2008 2:50 PM:of Mardi Gras, which is a further example of morals gone downhill. Same with molestation of kids. You just presented two more reasons why we are in the end times. We don't know the date, but we know the season. 50 years ago kids could walk to school safely, kids could play and be gone all day without parents worrying. People who choose exact dates for Christ's return are wrong, but we are in the season.

I trust the bible wrote on Nov 17, 2008 2:52 PM:Not "peer reviewed" scientists, who change their thinking every 20 years.

ENOUGH wrote on Nov 17, 2008 2:52 PM:But ENOUGH[-] wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:48 PM: Yes. I voted for Prop 8 and I know many at my church that are all for civil unions. They only care about marriage being between a man and a woman. That's it. If civil union = marriage, they have no problem with it.

To Sonny wrote on Nov 17, 2008 3:09 PM:Before you get too carried away with yourself, please provide evidence that embryonic stem cells are not important to stem ceel research and please provide evidence that falsifies evolution. Your comments are in total disagreement with main stream science, so either you’re a genius who has some critically important information to share with us or you’re simply another Irvin trying to put lipstick on a pig (creationism). You’re the one who has some explaining to do, huff and puff all you want, but you have to explain why over 98% of the experts in genetics, paleontology, anatomy, ecology, embryology, molecular biology and other related fields are wrong, and you of all people happen to know better than them. So please, enlighten us, what do you know (not what kind of silly questions can you ask)? If you want to know (e.g. how ecolution is tested, why embruonic stem cells are important) what the 98% of the scientists know then learn science (not creation science). Don’t ask for your education in a blog like this. As for your social "dark ages" what the heck are you talking about? Is this the typical conservative paranoia you're spewing (liberals are the devil, science is evil, everyone is stupid but Sonny) or what?

to Sonny wrote on Nov 17, 2008 3:35 PM:Thanks for telling us what your pastor says every week. Now try reading a book other than the bible. The war on science is over take your uneducated opinions and

geez chuck wrote on Nov 17, 2008 4:12 PM:You aren't even making any sense anymore. The election affect you that bad?

jvc wrote on Nov 17, 2008 4:26 PM:Where is the Hippocratic oath?
We now spent 2.4 trillion dollars for
health care annually because of greed and fraud! Is it time for government health preventative care? No more
making millionairs from of our illnesses!

to to yeah right wrote on Nov 17, 2008 4:28 PM:Next to Bosnia

to I trust the Bible wrote on Nov 17, 2008 4:31 PM:Yes, the peer reviewed scientists do change their view. That's called "learning". That's called "improving your ideas based on facts". Oh, never mind.

3D wrote on Nov 17, 2008 4:36 PM:The comment titled "I trust the Bible" at 2:52 p.m. leaves me wondering which part of the Bible s/he believes in.
Take Genesis for example (and maybe here Mr. Forbing and/or Sonny might offer some gracious assistance).
Look at Genesis in the first chapter and compare it with the second chapter and then tell me, which was the sequence of creation? For example, if the Institute for Creation Research sought relevant information from Genesis, would they determine that plants were created, then animals, then humans (Genesis 1), or humans, then plants then animals (Genesis 2)? Note that in both passages, time indicators are clearly established.
Or, if you are trying to establish the lineage of Jesus as coming from the House of David, would you look at the genealogy offered in Matthew chapter 1 or Luke chapter 3? Both claim to be the lineage of Jesus through Joseph, yet between Joseph on one end and Solomon the son of David on the other, there is not one name that is the same; not even the same number of generations.
I have compiled HUNDREDS of direct Bible contradictions.
So when you say you "trust the Bible," which of the contradictory inconsistencies do you mean? How can you tell?
Blessings,
3D

Shawn wrote on Nov 17, 2008 4:54 PM:Again, we the gay community want civil marriage. Not religious marriage. As a gay person I personally will fight on religion's side if any gay person trys to force any religion to marry them. Religion has every right to marry who they wish or wish not to marry. No one should force any religion to marry them. But the state does not have that right since they serve us all. We all pay taxes and deserve to be treated the same. We the gay community will continue to work to see that we are served by our state. We hope those on the Yes side of prop 8 side will work with us to see that religious marriage is protected and not forced to marry gay people. We also hope that everyone will work to allow us the right to state civil marriage, not religious marriage.

To I trust the bible wrote on Nov 17, 2008 5:07 PM:You better stop eating pork and shellfish.

But to- but to Huntley wrote on Nov 17, 2008 5:28 PM:You should more outraged that Prop 22 violated the California Constitution!
If you look at these propositions and ask yourself "Does this comply with or violate either the California or U.S. Constitution?", you would not be bemoaning it being overturned.
I voted no on Prop. 83 a few years back not because I like sex offenders but because it had parts that violated the U.S. Constitutional proscription on punitive ex post facto laws.
Every time that you vote for an un-Constitutional law, you will eventually be mad because it got overturned, you will call the Judges "activist" even though they were not, and the only one to blame is yourself.

halletje wrote on Nov 17, 2008 5:37 PM:Well, I see the useful “greenies” where out today regurgitating the global warming / global climate change mantra like good little soldiers.

Alf wrote on Nov 17, 2008 5:42 PM:Well, "Karl" at 1:12PM,
Our state attorney general is pressing for the California Supreme Court to expedite considering whether to hear the 4 cases before them regarding Prop. 8.
Jerry Brown will defend Prop. 8, as is his duty, but he will also defend the validity of the marriages performed between June and November.
From an article in sfgate
""There is significant public interest in prompt resolution of the legality of Proposition 8. This court can provide certainty and finality in this matter," Deputy Attorney General Mark Benington said in court papers."
Now, if Prop. 8 is ruled un-Constitutional, as was Prop. 22, I wonder if the YES folks will get the message that they may be able to pass un-Constitutional props, but they will be slammed down each and every time until they comply with the Constitution. AND they can't Amend the Constitution to violate itself.
Regards, Alf.

GARCIA is right.... wrote on Nov 17, 2008 5:50 PM:Mr. Garcia's well written letter about the bad sportsmanship, temper tantrums, protests and whining of Prop 8 proponents is the majority opinion. Gee, following Prop 8 spoilsports, maybe the 50 plus million voters who voted for John McCain should all take to the streets just like the sore losers of Prop 8. What a disgrace! Thx Mr. Garcia for so eloquently putting this into perspective for us.

hardtack wrote on Nov 17, 2008 5:55 PM:No matter what you think about the doctor, aviator, war veteran, Irving Forbing, a rational mind must admit that Forbing nailed “DD.”

DD ‘s posts and letters are routinely 90% percent (or more) about the messenger and 10% (or less) about the message.

Backcountry wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:21 PM:Looking glass at 12:31 is right....."What man can conceive, mankind can achieve." Case in point....Global warming.

Unchanging wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:33 PM:"I Trust the Bible" at 2:52 p.m. doesn't like how scientists "change their thinking every 20 years."
Guess what, it is called PROGRESS.
Are you using the same computer you used 20 years ago?
Driving the same kind of car?
Oh, excuse me.
If everyone took your attitude, we wouldn't have any cars or computers.

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:47 PM:"hardtack" Hypocrisy
The post from "hardtack" (5:55pm) complains that I "90%" attack messengers instead of messages.
The fact that he just says this but is unable to cite even one specific example shows that he is not 90%, but ONE HUNDRED PERCENT guilty of the very thing he accuses me of.
This is just more sour grapes from someone who can only call names; can't discuss serious issues at any level of conceptual depth.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Ron wrote on Nov 17, 2008 7:31 PM:Obviously, my good friend...
"But Ron" @6:51 AM musta missed his social studies class?

"Were Adam and Eve married?", he asks.

Do I have to explain every jot and tittle? I guess I do...

Look at my post...
Clearly, I lean on real science, i.e. Darwinism.. so, I think it's rather obvious. It's all about "the plumbing."
Marriage makes next generation possible... because it is the glue for a civilized society. Marriage is a stabilizer of society, a norming, a taming of biological urges.

But, let me answer your question as directly as I can. I don't actually know.
But I do know this, Adam was a man, and Eve was a woman.
I would use the saying: Not Adam & his male room mate., but you already knew that.

To Trust the Bible wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:00 PM:I must be honest. Your post Not "peer reviewed" scientists, who change their thinking every 20 years" is the one of the most ignorant statements I've read in a long time. Congratulations! Do you know anything about science, let alone what it even is? The answer has to NO.

To Hardtrack wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:16 PM:Yes, Irvin Forbing is quite the genuis. I'm always impressed by a guy who thinks the world is 6 thousand years old, that science is ignorance and that religion is the only light we need to explore the unknown. Even more impressive is a guy like you who thinks Irvin is a pretty bright and rational fellow. Yikes.

Plumbing wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:21 PM:Ron at 7:31 p.m. continues to give mixed signals.
He claims to "lean on real science," therefore "it's rather obvious. It's all about 'the plumbing.'"
Still obsessing about Joe the Plumber, are we?
Clearly there is not going to be reproduction if the entire species were to give up cross-sexual mating.
But if only a small percentage of the species does so, as occurs throughout the history of our species and most (possibly) other species that reproduce sexually, same-sex coupling does not seem to be a threat to reproduction or evolution.

But what leaves me confused is that Ron continues to avoid the question repeatedly posed as to this point: if marriage is ONLY about reproduction, what about post-menopausal women, anyone who has been sterilized or found to be infertile? Do you or do you not support a ban on fertility-challenged marriage? And what level of certification do you propose to ensure that only the fertile are allowed to wed?

And, even if it is a choice (contrary to massive volumes of evidence), elsewhere you constantly talk about "freedom" - so isn't it hypocrisy if you choose to restrict "freedom" to those who use their "freedom" to make choices different than yours.
Get a dictionary, Ronnie Boy.
That's not freedom.

To DD wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:22 PM:Please consider a Dale Carnigie course.

Question wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:40 PM:I have seen 120, 130, 140 posts on this blog on other days.

Tonight, at 8:35 we are at 80, and probably will not break the century mark.

Is it just possible that the "All Gay, All the Time" has worn out the Bloggers?

hardtack wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:59 PM:Check that @ 5:55 PM – – make it 100% percent about the messenger and 0% about the message.

Dale wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:25 PM:Once again a cheap shot in the blog at 8:22 p.m.
A person hides behind the protective, secretive cloak of this blog's mandatory anonymity to hurl insinuations that attempt to disparage another blogger, but there is nothing, nothing at all that is specific.
This, folks, is the conservative modus operandi of recent years.
Name calling, empty insinuations, but nothing of substance. 100%.
This, folks, is the vaunted slime machine that REAL AMERICANS have now utterly repudiated.

And in the same vein, at least we can agree that Hardtack's self-description finally gets something right.
What a ... man who must wallow in the stench of mud-throwing but never, ever addresses ideas, as his blogs today so sadly, pathetically demonstrate. Indeed, 100% of his blogs today, just as he said.

Soft Flack wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:56 PM:Check that at 8:59 p.m. - yep, you did, indeed, make it 100% about the messenger and 0% about the message.
You said it, you did it!
Congratulations.
I think.

Conservatives stay cranky even when they win.
Now that they lost big time, watch for some really, really sore losers.

My comment wrote on Nov 18, 2008 3:26 AM:J Cunningham needs to be put on display in a museum to prove that such irrationality actually still existes in the 21st century. I was astounded. And I do not astound easily. My genealogical research was rolling in the archives of ancient history. Hey! It was good for laughs! LOL!

Roberto1 wrote on Nov 18, 2008 5:36 AM:Looks like the Obama heads are still gloating. What goes around, comes around. And of course the jokes, you have to be careful. Fours year will be enough.

Also to Ron wrote on Nov 18, 2008 2:45 PM:Regarding "were Adam and Eve married?...Did the boys practice incest?....How did they procreate? JW

To Immorality and bible wrote on Nov 18, 2008 5:15 PM:Keep Faith, these mockers of God will get reap their harvest. The comments by these condemned only validate what Jesus said about the last days. We know the bible is Gods infalible Word and food to our soul. Those that are dead and perishing spiritually do not understand it or accept the gift of God.
To all that Mock us believers, You will rejoice when The Church is gone at first, then you will look for Christ, but it will be to late.

Jesus loves all!

Its sad wrote on Nov 18, 2008 5:25 PM:how people who do not believe in the bible, and have never met Jesus or let Him in their heart can use the scriptures to mock His people. I have met Jesus, and he broke the chains that had me in bondage to drugs and a criminal lifestyle. I have felt His power in my life. Please don't mock The Lord.

But Its sad wrote on Nov 18, 2008 10:46 PM:It's even more sad to see religion subvert the Constitution, for in subverting the Constitution freedom of religion is also subverted.
Beware!