wtf wrote on Nov 23, 2008 4:05 AM:James Langford’s attempt at a rational, common sense review of events surrounding Prop 8 fails miserably.
Strike one: He says that suits should have been brought before the vote to challenge the validity of the proposition. They were. Courts generally do not hear pre-election challenges and rejected the suits without comment in July.
Strike two: He says that all previous propositions should be reviewed if Prop 8 is to be. They are. By somebody. Not all challenges make it to the Supreme Court. They’ve invalidated two as unconstitutional, I believe.
Strike three: He says no one is complaining about Prop 13. He’s kidding, right? That’s why California is broke.
Swing an' a miss. You're out.

wtf wrote on Nov 23, 2008 4:44 AM:Erica, Erica, Erica.
We do not live in a democracy. It’s a republic.
Judges, and in California’s case, elected judges, are sworn to defend our Constitution from the tyranny of the majority.
You could get a majority of voters to pass all sorts of unconstitutional things. The courts decide what is and what is not. It’s called Judicial Review. See Marbury v. Madison.
As for her Holocaust reference, that’s the one where gays were put into concentration camps just for being gay, right?
And a Prop 8 supporter arguing against, “The targeting of specific groups for political hatred and angry retaliation...”
I have no words for that.

Alf wrote on Nov 23, 2008 6:02 AM:In his letter, James Langford mentions Prop. 13.
Prop. 13 benefitted every citizen who owned, owns or will own a home by allowing 3 things and only 3 things to increase the property tax on that home -
1) any improvements made on that home or property,
2) a maximum increase of 2 percent per year excluding any improvements,
3) voter approved measures.
No longer can the county raise the assessed valuation on a home based on what your neighbor sold his for or what the market value of similar homes any time they want to, as was the case before Prop. 13.
No longer can the county raise the tax rate on property any time they want to, as was the case before Prop. 13.
No property owner or group of property owners can be singled out and have their property tax jump 100 OR MORE percent in one year when they have made no improvements, as was the case before Prop. 13.
Whatever the value is when purchased plus any improvements is what anyone is taxed on and the basic tax can not increase more than 2 percent per year no matter if you purchased your home in 1980, 1990, 2000 or whenever in the future.
Compare that to a proposition that targets a specific group or minority and declares that that group or minority does not have the same rights as a majority, codifies into law specific discrimination against that minority.
There is no, nor can there ever be any, comparison, none. We're not talking apples and oranges here, we're talking apples and a Sherman tank.
I, however, do not expect someone who is so obviously biased against homosexuals, the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court to comprehend the difference, I expect more of the same biased rationalizations for discriminatory attitudes, behaviors and challenges to equal protection under the law via propositions which violate both the words and spirit of the California Constitution and the United States Constitution.
Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on Nov 23, 2008 6:46 AM:Perhaps, Armand Archambeault does not understand freedom as the Founders intended it?

You see, that is the wonder, and the magnificence of the system our Founders designed. Each person, each individual is allowed by God, not by man, and not by a government to have freedom of speech.
Not responsible speech as Armand obviously would like to impose, but unregulated freedom of speech.

As to the "revolutionaries" trying to change this country, the only one's I'm aware of are the progressives, who are now saying openly they will use the government by authoritarian action to close down avenues of speech.
Then Armand Archambeault and others won't have to worry about having their feelings hurt by something someone else says....
At least, that what the Authoritarians promise. In history, just for education sake, after avenues of speech were shut down by authoritarian regimes, the next step in the process was re-education by force, if necessary.

The goose and the gander wrote on Nov 23, 2008 6:48 AM:I wonder if Erica Cabacungan was similarly disheartened and feared for her democracy in 2000 when tyrannical judges disregarded the majority vote of the people and installed GWB as president.

Ron wrote on Nov 23, 2008 7:04 AM:And yet again, another letter with no stated animosity for the 70% of African-americans who voted for NObama, but also voted for Prop 8, to keep marriage between one man & one woman.
And why no criticism for the 64% of Hispanics?
Did not these two groups also vote to "take your rights away?"
Why no protests outside of their churches? Hmmmmmmmm?

And let's be clear, not even NObama believes in "marriage" for same-sex couples, he believes in civil unions. Our current law in California provides for civil unions.

By continuing down this path of attempting to destroy churches, and their individual members, the gay community will do only one thing.

They will bring those groups together for common cause.

So keep on sending those white powder filled envelopes, keep on crashing Communions, keep on keying people's cars outside of churches (ya chickens!), keep on shouting about religious intolerance...
Because your intolerable actions will be the catalyst to bring together the largest blow back you've ever witnessed.
And you'll have no one to blame, except yourselves. You will have brought it upon yourselves.

Ron wrote on Nov 23, 2008 7:41 AM:Yes, it is "Prop. 8 sour grapes", James Langford.

Everytime the Left loses, they go to court to overturn the will of the people. Ever notice that?
Every single time, I don't think there's ever been an exception.

Every single time the Left has disagreed with the outcome of an election, they go into court and attempt to thwart the election results they disagree with, by judicial fiat.
Obviously, they prefer oligarchies.

For those not familiar with this term, let me.. as the educator of this page inform you as to it's meaning, and it's usage in history. So, pay attention, I'm educating you NO on 8 people!

An "Oligarchy" is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family, military powers or occult spiritual hegemony. In this case, they're lawyers, who wear black robes, and love big gummint.

They are supposed to be public servants, and Thomas Jefferson warned us about the natural impulse of judges: “Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.”

The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" and "rule", as in "the few rule over the many." Now do you see why I keep mocking this idea by the Leftists on this page about "smart people running gummint?"
They ABSOLUTELY believe that.

Liberals who do not win at the ballot box, naturally prefer the judicial Oligarchs, they naturally prefer "the power behind the throne", exerting control through judicial tyranny.

What they, these Liberals who now prefer the Oligarchies fail to understand or appreciate, is that..
the Oligarchs have been tyrannical throughout history.
Almost without exception, Oligarchs have changed free societies into
complete public servitudes.

Why do you think I keep talking about "the Rice Paddies", because eventually everyone will be the serf's of the oligarchs if you keep giving them preference to the will of the people.
Why do you think the Founders wrote about "We the People...?"
It's not We the Oligarchs, for good reason.

Ron wrote on Nov 23, 2008 8:29 AM:As I stated eariler, freedom of speech is given by God, not by men, not by any government, has allowed Daniel Smiechowski to say his piece today...
NOW, it's my turn.

Daniel says: "Regarding the selection of America's next secretary of state: Who is better suited than Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts in becoming our nation's top diplomat?"
He the goes on to compare John Kerry to
Benjamin Franklin? Because the guy speaks French? LOL
I beg to differ on the intellect, sensitivity, strength and charisma... {gag}

I don't ever recall reading Ben Franklin saying the following about his own countrymen:
"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

And wasn't François Mitterrand a member of the Socialist Party? Think Ben Franklin would approve of that?
Doubtful...
But, in America, every person is entitled to his own opinion, no matter what anyone else thinks.
Thank God.

John wrote on Nov 23, 2008 8:37 AM:LAYOFF Richard Kirk. HIRE James Amorosa to take his place. His letter pretty much sank Kirk's last column (and most of what he has rehashed in various columns appearing in the NCT).

TheWolf wrote on Nov 23, 2008 8:38 AM:Apparently Tate Sayre does not know that Clinton was impreached for obstruction of justice. While the underlying crime was extremely minor, the President swears an oath to uphold the Constitution and his attempted coverup was not only stupid, but impeachable.

John wrote on Nov 23, 2008 8:39 AM:George Tremain's letter today re: Obama on 60 minutes. Are George's comments a foreboding prediction of Obama's performance to come - or a lamentation of Bush's 2 terms of failures? I think it must be the later.

To George Tremain wrote on Nov 23, 2008 8:42 AM:To George Tremain: That wasn't 60 minutes you were watching that was a KKK news report or maybe Fox news.

Nick wrote on Nov 23, 2008 8:42 AM:As I pointed out yesterday, I find it very interesting to follow Oabamas appointments.
So far, 2/3rds of his appointments served Bill Clinton. As a matter of fact, 31 of the 47 appointed served Bill.
None of Mr Obama’s first key appointments — all senior members of the Clinton administration — backed him in the primary contest.
The appointment of Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff has many in the Muslim world riled up. Emanuel, who served as a top adviser to President Bill Clinton and is now a member of the House, is known in the U.S. for his aggressive determination.
His service to the Israel Defense Forces and pro-Israel slant is a point of controversy for many Muslims and those in North Africa.
I will continue to follow these appointments with trepidation.

To Erica Cabacungan wrote on Nov 23, 2008 8:52 AM:You are a hypocrite!!! Your letter is filled with lies and hypocracy. Lets start with "We are sickened by politicians standing by, allowing hate crimes, intimidation, death threats and vandalism at our homes, our churches and our places of work." Why don't you site actual cases rather than just stroke your broad brush of accusation. How dare you attempt to compare this issue as "the scenario is reminiscent of the circumstances preceding the Holocaust." I bet when you are in sitting in your pew singing How Great thou Art you are not thinking about those who are "targeting of specific groups for political hatred and angry retaliation" I agree it must stop!! You sit quietly and idly by while the church folks allow the targeting of a specific group for political hatred and racism. The silence of the church on the issue of illegal immigration is blaring!!! It is a horrible indictment of the church when groups go out in droves to fight against homosexuals but remain painfully silent while the rights of some are being violated because the issue of illegal immigraton is "to polictical". I am flabergasted by the position of Christians. You are right I too am tired of "Elected officials who are sworn to defend our constitution are not doing their jobs. Christians need to wake up and speak up about the tyranny and oppression being waged against the Latino community. I wonder if any of you zealots have ever asked yourself this question "Who would Jesus deport?

To Tony San Miguel wrote on Nov 23, 2008 8:57 AM:Your letter is so right on. Thank you

sdraoul wrote on Nov 23, 2008 9:35 AM:It is well accepted that the New York Times prints Op-Ed pieces it agrees with only, most of the time.

For DD's edification, here is an Op-Ed published to day on whether or not FDR's attempts at bringing the country out of the Depression and high unemployment aqctually accomplished these goals. They did not.

"In short, expansionary monetary policy and wartime orders from Europe, not the well-known policies of the New Deal, did the most to make the American economy climb out of the Depression. Our current downturn will end as well someday, and, as in the ’30s, the recovery will probably come for reasons that have little to do with most policy initiatives.

Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University."

Ron wrote on Nov 23, 2008 9:41 AM:Now....
What did I tell you about this Liberal rage?

The election of Barackous NObamous did not make it go away, it gave voice to it. Gave it permission to be "in their faces."
We see this with all the gay activists keying cars, mailing white powered envelopes, and accosting individuals on the street, in their homes, or place of business.

But, I'm noticing a gap in logical linkage here, between Barackous with his real world intelligence and
pragmatism, and his followers.
Could not Tony's following sentence be written this way:

There is no difference between Obama and God-fearing conservative bigot neighbors to deny homosexuals the right to a legal marriage?
NObama is on record as opposing same-sex marriage.
Why is he never called a bigot?

Because those on the Left are trapped inside their own theology, that is,
the word "White" must proceed any statement containing the word "bigot."

As for Darrell Issa and Brian Bilbray
and opposing open border policies,
many Hispanic Americans also oppose illegal aliens being granted amnesty. Would they be considered traitors to their race? Or bigots?

Within the Liberal, Progressives, or whatever else they are calling themselves today to hide who & what they really are so as to fool you they are not dangerous...
They will not say it aloud, because it violates their own theological dogma.
Chickens, I like to call them.

And this country is now bankrupt due to nearly 70 years of government welfare.
God knows how many trillions of dollars have been passed from Rich to poor since the New Deal, I know that at least 9 trillion has been passed since the Great Society. Some $56 trillion is owing, and outstanding due to these disasters. Almost $4 trillion in home mortgages from CRA/Fannie/Freddie the two government entities that should NOT have failed, if the liberal theorem holds true that all government is good, and right.

Liberal Institutionalism led to the worldwide economic crisis.
And this will take a little critical thinking on my liberals friends part, but.. what the hay.. let's give it a shot.
IF Democratic Socialism works, and works well... Why did the socialized economic systems in Europe, and other places fail to absorb our economic failure?
I think that's a great question.

As to the rest of his diatribe, I tried to warn you...
The Left, even with this great accomplishment to securing power, STILL... is not happy.
And the reason they are not happy is one thing, they need ALL power, because they love despots.
To further advocate increased regulation of religious insitutions, as Mr. San Miguel does, reflects something I read eariler this week, and posted right here. "Burn their F-ing churches to the ground, and tax the charred remains."
Because they hate free expression folks, they just can not have other people saying stuff they disagree with.
And these despots will seek at all levels to shut down all opposition, by any means at their deposal.

Reardon wrote on Nov 23, 2008 9:45 AM:Alf: Most people do not know that a California homeowner may take Prop. 13 tax with them more than once -- although there are few of us under the original Prop. 13 tax rate.

If you have a doctors written directive to move closer to a hospital, or from a two0story home to a one-story home, and you have already taken your Prop. 13 status with you once, you may apply to get it a second time.

Fewer and fewer people are able to take that advantage, but if a senior needs it, call the County Assessor's Office.

I was a debater FOR Prop. 13 back in the 70s, and I never knew of this provision until I called the Assessor’s office for a client a decade ago and the phone was answered by a person who processes these claims.

OBAMAPREZ wrote on Nov 23, 2008 9:48 AM:Nick at 8:42 a.m. joins the litany of conservatives who all complained that Obama lacks "experience" and are now whining because he is, what? Hiring people with experience!
Let me explain (AGAIN!!!) how this works: 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. But of course this is just way over the heads of conservatives like Nick.

Nick is just one more whiner who is complaining about Obama before the guy even takes office!
Considering the mess made by the last crowd, and all the total failures of judgment from the other side, why would anyone take their concerns seriously?

Nick is just one more pathetic victim of the scare tactics of domestic terrorists on right-wing hate radio.

Ron wrote on Nov 23, 2008 9:53 AM:>>>To Erica Cabacungan @8:52 AM:
I wonder if any of you zealots have ever asked yourself this question "Who would Jesus deport?>>>

Those who don't have green cards.

To Nick wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:03 AM:You should check the lobbyists on the Obama team.

Campbell Brown was on Wolf Blitzer's Sunday morning show, and said that despite Obama's often-stated pledge to rid Washington of lobbyists, she has found 15 of those (or whose relations have a built-in conflict of interest) on his transition team, or appointments.

As Brown correctly noted, some of the most informed people in Washington are lobbyists, but that is NOT what Obama promised and she made that distinction.

There will be a lot of promises that Obama simply can't keep -- for which we should all be eternally thankful.

Ron wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:14 AM:And yet Again....
the failure of Americans to educate themselves, falls to me {and I have no problem with this burden} to educate, the uneducated.

Don Peat says: "Republicans holding {the} state hostage."

His complaint: Liberals do not hold complete power. Ya see?! I keep telling ya, it's all about complete power, and despotism with the Left.

He basically wants to do away with "The two-thirds rule" to pass a state budget.

Here's how you spot the despot, as opposed to the Statesman, like our Founders, who sot by education, enlightenment, and then to convince, and persuade those opposed to their side.

The Despot, seeks power. The more complete that power is, the better.
When the despot can not gain advantage, they then seek to rig the game, or change the rules, as is the case with Don Peat and other Leftists.

The Iron Fist approach is the prefered method of the Leftist Despot.

As to the amount of taxation within this State paid for by individuals who make more than $500,000 a year...
This small sliver of the total population pays 80% of all the income taxes, while the lower 99% pay only 20%.
Don thinks that's unfair, he wants more.
He calls this current system unequitable.
Which brings me to my other favorite quote for the Left, by the Left, about the Left:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Now, where did I read that? In the Constitution? or was that in Critique of the Gotha Program?

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:14 AM:FDR and Economic Recovery
The post from "sdraiyk" (9:35am) confirms yet further still his descent into utter fantasy and desperation.
No, "sdraoul," it is NOT "well accepted that the New York Times prints Op-Ed pieces it agrees with only, most of the time." If you ever actually opened the New York Times you would know that they print a wide range of viewpoints, including many extremely conservative writers such as William Kristol, Peter Brooks and Rich Lowry, as well as many other conservative voices from time to time.
"sdraoul" has so hopelessly given up on consider actual FACTS he has descended to the level of citing CONSERVATIVE OPINION by an author who, like him, is determined to denigrate the reputation of the true American hero who saved this country from both Socialism and the Great Depression.
But since "sdraoul" and the conservatives have not gotten one single thing right, whether in their election predictions or their ideas of how to run (or in the present case, destroy) the federal government, none of this should comes as any kind of surprise.
In fact, the writer he cites, Tyler Cowen, is also a regular writer for the ultra conservative New Republic and, if "sdraoul" actually knew anything, he would be aware that Cowen's reputation is as a conservative/libertarian.
He obviously has an agenda and, like "sdraoul," is not going to be bother by the FACTS which I have repeatedly submitted.
To "sdraoul": do I need to post again the steady year-by-year plummeting of unemployment figures right after FDR took office, up until the rumblings of WWII (but before our own retooling kicked in)?

Utter desperation, "sdraoul." Utterly pathetic.
C'mon, you can do better than that. Or maybe not.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Whites of Their Eyes wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:30 AM:Nick: The Obama team is relatively strong, so far.

Hillary for State was terrific, although she is less qualified than Richardson she makes a better European impression. Richardson would have been the best negotiator but he lacks the Clinton cache. Richardson is barely qualified at Commerce, but he is a quick study – as is Obama.

Lawrence Summers at the Economic Council is excellent, as is Tim Geithner at Treasury.

The weakest appointment is Eric Holter at AG, and indeed he may not survive the Senate grilling.

Let’s save the partisan attacks until we have something to attack – like a policy. Clinton’s first major mis-step was gays in the military. Bush’s first mis-step was steel tariffs. Every president gets his nose bloodied because they REALLY think they are “the decider.”

Reality bites soon enough, and Obama acolytes will carry him deeper into the administration with support than most presidents enjoy, but save your ammunition.

This will be a target rich environment, and you are well advised to concentrate on the most likely threat, who is most vulnerable, in priority.

That Obama's rhetoric does not comport with his actions is not news, except to political neophytes.

ODd on Ron wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:31 AM:Does the term "diarrhea of the blog" mean anything to Ron? Does anyone besides the moderators actually read his rants? What a waste of time and money. Fire Ron - Hire reporters.

John wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:33 AM:Now that the Mormon Church has decided to help shape our government and laws through funding of Prop 8 - can they help pay for our government? Seems fair enough to me. Like tithing. Tax 'em!!!

2 Ron from John wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:41 AM:Answer to your question... Obama is not (yet) called a bigot regarding Prop 8 and gay marriage because he didn't participate in the Prop 8 efforts. He didn't vote in California nor did he fund the prop - unlike the many religious organizations who are now rightly called bigots. And BTW - Tony Sam Miguel's letters are wonderful. They are certainly more interesting, entertaining and well reasoned than your daily pot shots at liberals in this forum. I also note that he can make his point in a 200 word letter and you can't.

Alf wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:49 AM:Actually, Erica Cabacungan, that's a democratic REPUBLIC.
I don't like to have to say this, but I have seen way too many letters and comments by people who would flunk elementary school social studies, either that or they think with their emotions (which are usually irrational)rather than reason.
Our REPUBLIC has a system of checks and balances and the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution, be it on the state or federal level.
A larger percentage of the voters who voted, 70 percent, passed Prop. 83 and since parts of that proposition violate the U.S. Constitutional prohibition of punitive ex post facto laws, those parts were struck down.
Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:54 AM:Between Edward Chacon's "Republicans could have done more damage", & Peggy Sloan's "Let's get serious"...
let me say this.

I guarantee you, had this liberal-like spending been done by liberals, as it had been done for the 40 years proceding 1994, The Left in this country would have praised it as Noble, and Needed, and they would have used all the pap political phrases we've all learned to throw up every time we hear them: "It's for the Children", "We can't throw old people out in the streets", etc., etc., yadda, yadda, yadda.

Completely missed by emotional cripples, is the rise in domestic spending during the Bush years of 25%.
Not Halliburton, not KBR, not Big Oil...
Domestic spending! A New Drug Bennie, massive increases in VA benefits to which Bush will never be credited, and increases across the board in every agency.
Heck, in California alone, we had a 40% in the size and spending of State government in just 5 short years. The contempt for the taxpayer always stalked by a very left of center legislature is un-nerving.

As a Conservative, I am appalled, as I always am about huge increases of spending of MY MONEY.
And the Left in this country is relentless. Two steps forward, one step back was first made famous by Soviets, but... it has taken on a whole new sentiment inside my country.
The Left has been successful at fear, and scaring people into to thinking that their last best hope is to hand over to the Leftists in government all of their economic freedom.

I've had people say to me: "But Ron, but Ron... GWB is a republican, he's a conservative." Well, he might be a republican, but he's no conservative, economically speaking. Never has been.
I said that, from the gate.
As to those who say, Reagan never proposed to do away with all of the socialist programs set up by FDR, and for generations paid into them.
They say the same about Margaret Thatcher.
Your right, they didn't.
They tried to do the best they could to re-adjust for them. As I've said constantly, Once placed inside this socialist box, where generations have been led to believe those programs will be there, and not to thwart the good people's lves, Yes, they propped them up temporarily until the next couple of generations could re-adjust to solving these problems for themselves.
You can not completely collapse an economic struture, no matter how corrupt, until people can adjust to it's not being there.
Incrementalism back to the proper role of government and the People will easily take as long as it did to put us in this bad spot.
Don't you think?

Alf wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:59 AM:Well, "Reardon" at 9:45AM,
when my knees give out, the spiral staircase with its 8 and 3/4 rise treads goes out and an elevator goes in (I have 2 spare 50 amp circuits just in case, it pays to be your own electrician and to think ahead). For those without that option, the medical need transference of Prop. 13 is a doggone good thing.
Regards, Alf.

Vista Granny wrote on Nov 23, 2008 11:20 AM:Dear Ron: You must be the only person in the whole world blaming "70 years of government welfare" for the current financial crisis. What a nut!

Gotta Wonder wrote on Nov 23, 2008 11:21 AM:Erica Cabacungan Our elected officials are sworn to defend the constitution. I can not find any reference to upholding a majority vote in that oath.

OBSERVATION wrote on Nov 23, 2008 11:27 AM:APEC Leaders Say Crisis Can Be Overcome in 18 Months

Ronnie and the Rant wrote on Nov 23, 2008 11:30 AM:Yeah, "Odd on Ron" at 10:31a.m., Ronnie Boy definitely has "diarrhea of the blog" - love the methaphor though don't really want to try to visualize an image to go with it.
And Ronnie Boy definitely doesn't disappoint, coming back at 10:54 a.m. to provide a perfect example of what you were talkin' about.

Ronnie Boy: "[GWB] might be a republican, but he's no conservative, economically speaking. Never has been. I said that, from the gate."
No you didn't.
You have been supporting him, campaigning for him, the whole nine yards for a very, very long time regarding, war, oil cronyism and, yes, the economy. You could barely control yourself from drooling as you salivated over your worship of this conservative "messiah."
Only now, as his (and your) philosophy has utterly crashed and burned and been proven to be the fraud that it is, do you suddenly stab him in the back and go looking for greener pastures (or maybe the snow-filled wastelands of an Alaskan moose-hunt).
Sorry Ronnie Boy, but we liberals have much better memories than you shallow conservatives give us credit for.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Nov 23, 2008 12:10 PM:DD Wiz[-] wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:14 AM: I concur with you. If FDR is so bad as alleged by sdroaul, why did the American people elect me four times to be their President?

Karl wrote on Nov 23, 2008 12:24 PM:Don Peat, "They" already do.

Peace

Karl wrote on Nov 23, 2008 12:26 PM:ODd on Ron @ 10:31 AM:

So you only read posts that you agree with? How very sad and close minded.

Peace

i6i5v
7pnei

To Geroge Tremain wrote on Nov 23, 2008 12:30 PM:Your comments reminded me of what a wise man once said "those with no passion, intelligence or ability have few options other than belittling those with passion, intelligence and ability.

jvc wrote on Nov 23, 2008 12:30 PM:Since almost everyone has agreed that we should NOT raise taxes to balance the state budget, what is the general consensus about what needs to be cut
for a balanced budget? Public unions
will not agree to cuts, so, is the only cuts availble are those funds used to help the poor? Has someone gathered the information of how much we could balance the budget if we cut aid to the poor? It now is becoming clear that the only recourse we have to balance the budget is to cut out funding to help the poor, a plan that should be done posthaste to keep the sound state credit rating intact!

Nick wrote on Nov 23, 2008 12:37 PM:"Obamaprez" must have me confused with someone else...Conservative and
Right-Wing hate radio...LMAO..Pleaseeeeee
I hate Republicans and Democrats alike...I just happen to loathe Democrats a little bit more...they make it to easy.
You keep swallowing all the manure being tossed out by Obama and his peeps..that's what you Dem's do...swallow what your fed cause you really can't seem to actually think for yourselves.
That's why you fools embrace Obama's ideas for Socialist policies...you want and need to be taken care of because folks like you can't think for yourselves or take care of youselves.
No thanks...I'll pass.
Cheers, Nick.

Nick wrote on Nov 23, 2008 12:39 PM:To "To Nick": You are correct amigo...Obama is in the process of doing EXACTLY what he promised not to do.
And all these Liberal Dems get their panties in a wad when I point out the obvious facts that Obama is a lying weasel of a politician.
Always has been and will continue to do so.
Cheers, Nick.

sdraoul wrote on Nov 23, 2008 12:48 PM:DD is pathetic and construes reality like it is some Wonderland, complete with rabbit holes.

The NY Times refused to print an OP-Ed piece of John McCain's written to rebut one they printed by Obama. That is very true, DD.

Sure they print Kristol (while they publish ultra-liberals Krugman, Rich, Collins and Dowd, a 4 to one ratio) and David Brooks (same ratio), but they don't print Rich Lowry.

And, the New Republic is not an "ultra-Conservative" publication. It never has been. It is Center left. DD’s ignorance shows with his claim that it is ultra-conservative.

I know more about the New York Times than DD has ever known. I wrote for the New York Times for seven years – very lucratively, I might add, before the current OP-Ed management took over and closed down the Syndicate department (New America News Service) that carried me to over 300 newspapers. As everyone knows newspapers like the Times and the LA Times are rapidly expiring and cutting back because they are closing down because they are losing so much money.

DD's ability to comprehend that FDR was hit and miss at wiping out the Depression is pitiful. We can thank Adolf Hitler for pulling us out of the Depression. That and increased money supply (M1 and M2)

DD simply doesn't know what he is talking about. FDR managed WWII well but his economic polices were highlighted by his attempt to control agriculture by subsidies and fascistic governance.

Before DD's head explodes, my stepfather grew up on Texas farms that were visited by agricultural agents who counted heads of cattle and pigs. If the count exceeded the assigned count, the extra cattle and pigs were killed on the spot. This in an effort to protect the “market.”

Concurrently, to protect peanut farmers, FDR's Agriculture department mandated quotas by license to grow peanuts. No one could grow peanuts without a license from the government. That holds to today. Farmers cannot grow peanuts in the Central Valley, for example, unless they buy a license from someone in Georgia or Texas.

Those, a broken Social Security system and a generation of Communsit rule in Eastern Europe are FDR’s legacy.

Ron wrote on Nov 23, 2008 12:51 PM:Well, "2 Ron from John" @10:41 AM,

So, am I to understand your position as... he has not yet sinned?

I guess I'm a little different than you, in that, if someone says something to me, I generally accept what they are telling me about themselves, unless they've given me reason to distrust.
Like, for example, if they told me they wanted to blow away another country.

Are we to now understand that, it's "just words"?

So, you can say you don't agree with gay marriage, and THAT does not make you a bigot.
But, if you actually follow thru with your convictions, then your a bigot?

So, let me get this straight in my own mind, as long as someone just say gays should not be allowed to marry, that places them under the "Barackous rule", and your not considered a bigot?

But, if you actually say what you mean, and do what you say, then your a bigot?

Yep, I think your guy will escape that title for quite a long time to come, if that's the rule.

As to my long winded posts....
As long as we live in Ron's America, everyone will be able to speak freely and very, very openly.
May that America survive the progressives.

To Ron wrote on Nov 23, 2008 1:01 PM:Ron you are not God!!! My Jesus would not deport anyone!! It is too bad the evil ones are the only speaking for Jesus. Let me just say as a Christian I plan on getting more involved in immigration issue. Not only does God love the illegal aliens the Constitution protects them. If we believe in law and order which I do I will do everything I can to protect it. Christians every where should speak up about this issue. We are hypocrites of we think we can say we are against same sex marriage and stay quiet about the abuses being suffered by Latinos because it to political.

bodecea wrote on Nov 23, 2008 1:32 PM:To James Langford,

Perhaps you are not familiar with how our courts work. A lawsuit could not be filed against Prop 8 UNTIL it became law. I hope that clears it up for you.

BTW...for you and those like you who think the majority vote should always rule and too bad for the losers? Will you feel that way in a few short years when Hispanics become the majority in CA and vote to make Spanish our language for government and doing business?

Ron wrote on Nov 23, 2008 1:55 PM:Hey.. ah... "ODd on Ron" @10:31 AM,

Since you said this: "Does the term "diarrhea of the blog" mean anything to Ron? Does anyone besides the moderators actually read his rants? What a waste of time and money. Fire Ron - Hire reporters."

I'm simply trying to get all of my stuff out, before the clowns you sliding scale socialists voted for, take over complete control, and I won't have an outlet.
Which, you'll then enjoy.
I like to call it, "The Echo Chamber."
Because it's empty....

CAVEL wrote on Nov 23, 2008 2:37 PM:re Reardon's comments re prop 13: From the State Board of Equalization's web site: "How many times can one receive the benefit of Propositions 60/90?
As a senior citizen, one may transfer his or her base year value only once, with the one exception that if a person first received relief for age and subsequently became severely and permanently disabled after the date of the original claim and had to move because of the disability (Proposition 110), then the base year value may be transferred a second time. The base year value transfer, however, is not available in the reverse situation; if one receives the benefit due to disability, then they cannot subsequently claim the relief for age."

FDR wrote on Nov 23, 2008 3:07 PM:For Liberals to get lectured by SDRaoul (9:35 a.m. and 12:48 p.m.) about the "failure" of FDR economcs is like getting lectured on morality by Heidi Fleiss.
Here is the economic philosophy espoused by SDRaoul:
HOOVER: Stock market crash of 1929, Bank Failures and Great Depression
REAGAN + Keating: Record Budget Deficits; Record Trade Deficits; Stock Market crash of 1987; collapse of Savings & Loans
BUSH + Phil "Nation of Whiners" Gramm: New Record Budget Deficits; Stock Market crash of 2008; collapse of all financial and real estate markets; Bush Depression.

Sorry, Raoul, you can try to rewrite history all you want, but it is consistently your failed Republican "trickle down" that gets us into these messes and Democratic "bubble up" that always gets us out.

You can call names to DDWiz all you want, but over and over he kicks your behind and rubs your nose in it.

Your economic track record is the biggest losing game in town.
The American people have rejected it completely.
Trying to sell Republican economics in a recession is like trying to sell central heating in hell.

Richard wrote on Nov 23, 2008 3:08 PM:In defense of Vietnam veterans, the Rutledge letter appropriately came out yesterday on the 45 year date that President Kennedy was massacred by a sniper in Dallas.
I finally saw the film JFK. In spite of those claiming there was only one sniper from the rear, the evidence in the film for the opposite view was that the jerking back of JFK's head was accompanied at the same instant with a wound to the front of the head. Also the rear head wound was a gaping exit type, not from the rear book building. I wish my Junior High teacher could have completed his wish to get to the bottom of what caused the tragedy. I too wish we could be given the whole of the evidence. The Congressional committee that concluded more than one sniper had evidence sealed until 2029. National security doesn't trump revelation of truth for citizens in my view, especially during peacetime. Pat Tillman's massacre by friendly fire was also covered up.
Kennedy opposed invading Cuba since it was not for self defense and he had signed an executive order to leave Vietnam because he felt it was 'their war, not ours'. Kennedy's principles of governance deserved respect, not a takedown massacre followed by locked up evidence; national security can handle it.

Republican Socialist wrote on Nov 23, 2008 3:20 PM:In several blogs today, Ron has reverted to his empty name calling.
"Socialist" this and "Socialist" that.
But he never cites a single specific policy or links it to a single specific tenet of socialism.

In contrast, I can link specific statements and policies of Republicans directly and explicitly to Socialism.

The basic tenet of socialism is the communal ownership by the "people" of the "means of production."
REPUBLICAN president George Bush has nationalized (in whole or part) major lending corporations and financial institutions. Not just bailouts or loan guarantees, but outright takeovers. Government ownership of private productive enterprises.

The Republican party in Alaska has direct Socialist operation of energy enterprises, including COMMUNAL ownership of energy enterprises (partially subcontracted through independent contractors) with DIVIDENDS returned as communal profits to citizens.
Former REPUBLICAN Alaska Governor Wally Hickel (who was also Nixon's Secretary of the Interior) described the Alaska state-owned/run enterprise as an "economy of the commons." (Newsweek 9-15-08, p.30)
Current REPUBLICAN governor of Alaska (and REPUBLICAN V.P. nominee) Sarah Palin described the Alaska state-owned/run enterprise this way: "And Alaska - we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's COLLECTIVELY Alaskans own the resources. So we SHARE THE WEALTH when the development of these resources occurs." (New Yorker Magazine, 9-22-08, Interview with Philip Gourevitch in August 2008 prior to being selected as VP nominee)

Bottom line: if you just yell "SOCIALIST" but can't tie any specific policy to any specific socialist position, you are a name caller. If you CAN tie specific details to specific socialist tenets, it is not name calling.
Based on the above, the Democrats are the party of Adam Smith.
The Republicans are the party of Karl Marx.

Reminder for Karl wrote on Nov 23, 2008 3:34 PM:I stopped reading Ron's rants long, long ago. But you assume that those who decide not to read him make this choice because they disagree with him. Not so! I have posted several times that I read lots of conservative bloggers here and have learned from them on occasion. Ron is different. Ron has a remarkable history here of telling half-truths and lies, exaggerating, name-calling, and unparalleled narcissism. I stopped reading Ron simply because he has proven to be extremely dishonest. I got tired of either posting corrections of his posts, or reading the many posts from others that point out Ron's falsifications. It's a waste of time. Think about it. Debate and discussion are cool. Lying is not. So I left Ron long, long ago and, judging from the titles of many posts, not much has changed in Ronworld. LOL

Sally wrote on Nov 23, 2008 3:38 PM:It's pointless to suggest taxing the churches, since that would violate the separation of church and state. It was the Supreme Court that declareed "the power to tax is the power to destroy". And destruction is your agenda if you want to tax the churches.

Alf wrote on Nov 23, 2008 3:47 PM:Fear not, "FDR" at 3:07PM,
there have already been people who post that 2 years of "Democrat-controlled Congress" is what led to this financial crisis.
According to them, nothing that the Republican-controlled Congress did in the 6 years previous and nothing about Republicans blocking the Democrats in the last 2 years and nothing that GWB did has caused, exacerbated or in any way contributed to the pickle that we're in right now.
And I believe that pigs have wings so they can fly to the moon.
Truth be told, BOTH parties are responsible -
one is tax and borrow and spend
the other is borrow and spend.
Then there's the people who knew that they could not afford a house and managed to get one anyway.
Regards, Alf.

CAVEL wrote on Nov 23, 2008 4:05 PM:The "liberal" versus "conservative" invective in these blogs are sophmoric and simplistic in the extreme. As though in a few short blogs one can adequately analyze the economic and political history of the last 80 years. FDR was for his time a master politician, but that's all he was. An economist he was not. To say that he "adequately" managed WWII is ??? During most of WWII FDR was a hopeless drunk who relied on his political cronies to pull things together. Look at photos of him in 1944. He is a shrunken and hollow and obviously seriously ill. Morally, he was a total failure. These are facts not opinions. Ronald Regan, the hero of many conservatives, was mostly lost in Washington, and more interested in movie nostalgia than government. Read Donald Regan's "For the Record" to get a glimpse of Reagan's utter lack of competence. I believe that the reality is that the politicans take credit for too much of the good and are blamed for too much of the bad. I think that they in many cases were simply ignorant bystanders who understood little or nothing of economics or philosophy or anything other than how to attain political power. It could even be said that they were in many cases the pawns and shills of the real power brokers. The real shakers and movers were those with great wealth who had the real power to change directions. To simply cheer and root for the home team and deride the opposition is childish and juvenile. If only it were all the simple: just hook onto one party and ride on with them to Nirvana. The Republican and Democrat parties are more alike than different.

My Dear Sally wrote on Nov 23, 2008 4:16 PM:Several churches abrogated the agreement. This "hands-off" policy is a two-way street with a line down the middle, LDS and Catholic churches (mini-coopers)crossed over that line and are about to get into a head-on crash with the government (a semi).

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 23, 2008 4:54 PM:Facts vs. Opinions on FDR
The post from "sdraoul" (12:48pm) is just more of his usual evasive doubletalk (typing carefully to make sure my right hand stays on the correct keyboard line this time).

Two quick points:

1. Regarding your citation of Tyler Cowen. It doesn't matter whether the New York Times prints a greater ratio of liberal to conservative opinion writers. I merely cited other writers to show that Tyler Cowen is not the only libertarian/conservative published by the New York Times. Don't beat around the bush: are you or are you not disputing that Tyler Cowen's reputation is universally that of a libertarian/conservative? Did you honestly not know this or are you being intentionally deceptive? And as for your usual "puffing" about your credentials, please understand that when someone uses the term "New York Times" BY ITSELF, it refers to the print edition. Please cite the dates of paid published articles in the New York Times print edition, or please clarify if you meant the less selective online edition and were just trying to exaggerate your publishing history. Again.

2. Again, you are citing OPINION PIECES of those who share your agenda to discredit the true American hero who saved this nation from both Socialism and the Great Depression.
Again, here are the FACTS that I have provided several times, directly from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics:
1933 - 24.95% (first year of FDR presidency)
1934 - 21.7%
1935 - 20.2%
1936 - 16.9%
1937 - 14.3%
Everything prior to this point is before the earliest hints of war in Europe and cannot be attributed to that.

The bottom line here is that, once again, "sdraoul" bases his conclusions on the OPINIONS of "economists" whose supply-side deregulatory Hoovernomics has been repeatedly proven to fail, while I base my conclusions on OFFICIAL FACTS.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Anti Marine wrote on Nov 23, 2008 5:16 PM:o MarineGunner: I checked out the site taht you provided. It starts out with "reports." I think that evidence is needed to support their claims.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 23, 2008 5:22 PM:To Richard: Just one point. A massacre is: the deliberate and intentional killing of a large number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty. You cannot call the murder of an individual a "massacre".

I just wanted to clarify your incorrect usage of the word.

To FDR: I am neither a republican nor a democrat. I consider myself a Constitutionalist. Both the republican party and the democratic party have lost sight of what their parties are and should be all about.Neither of them are any good at what they do. However, I do find Obamas "Redistribution of wealth" commentary to be on the socialist side of things.

I place the blame for our current economic situation squarely on the shoulders of both parties.
See, The United States was never intended to be a bi-partisan country. However, we have fallen into such a situation where any third party candidate really has no chance at all.
Only a fool would think that the powers that be are not manipulative enough to ensure that they stay in power. Any vote for a 3rd party candidate is a wasted vote due to the overwhelming number of voters who are blinded by partisan politics. That is why you hear of people saying thaty they did not necessarily vote "for" a candiate but "against" another. That is a huge problem which I think this country needs to address if we really want to get ourselves out of this mess. The founding fathers never intended to have "professional politicians" running this country. There should not be any such thing as a "professional politician".

One of the first things we need to do is to institute term limits at every level of government, not just some of them. There is a reason why we can only have a president for 2 terms, the rest should follow suit as well.

That is all I have to say for now. Time to go watch the Chargers game.

WELL SAID wrote on Nov 23, 2008 5:43 PM:"The essence of the liberal soul is the absence of the desire to exert power over other people." – – James M. Buchanan, Jr. (1919 - ), PhD, Nobel laureate, economics

To Well Said wrote on Nov 23, 2008 6:07 PM:Then explain to me the liberal support of unions?

To Well Said wrote on Nov 23, 2008 6:24 PM:Please explain the current liberal love of government, which as Washington said is not reason, but force?

Gringo wrote on Nov 23, 2008 7:04 PM:Liberal crybabies continue to whine about the fact that they lost the gay marriage vote again. Their latest foot-stomping tantrum includes irrational blather regarding "separation of church and state." We've had a straight up vote of the people of protect marriage (again), what does this have to do with the church? If church-going folks aren't supposed to be involved in politics, then the Democrat party is going to need to shut up an awful lot of inner-city ministers, upon whom the Democrats rely for their crooked "get out the vote" payoffs.

Karl wrote on Nov 23, 2008 7:05 PM:Reminder for Karl @ 3:34 PM:

Unless you have proof you are guilty of "half-truths and lies, exaggerating, name-calling". Please provide proof.

Peace

612fu
2x1zo

Gringo wrote on Nov 23, 2008 7:18 PM:Thanks for keeping up with the impeachment letter-writing campaign; it is better than the comics these days. Just one little nitpick – none of the loonies have ever produced any evidence of an impeachable offense by the Bush administration. The laundry list of bullstuff typically spouted by the impeachnuts serves to expose only the delusion of the far left, and their amusing willingness to believe anything printed by the New York Times, uttered by Hugo Chavez, or erroneously attributed to Chief Seattle.

We need more Rons wrote on Nov 23, 2008 7:50 PM:For every one Ron on this blog there are 5 opposites. The opposites to Ron can't get an intelligent point out each time without some sort of snide cutting remark. "What a nut" that granny person wrote as if she holds the key to sanity. The diarrhea of the blog comment was just just gross. Then there was the person who screamed that Ron is not God!!!!. I say, Hey Ron I appreciate your blogging style. Keep it up, you're really getting to them. They resort to name calling every time. They just can't make what they consider a point without doing it. What is it that one woman says at the end of her comments? "Pathetic!!!!!"

Richard wrote on Nov 23, 2008 7:57 PM:When a poster writes that Obama's staff pick is "anti Muslim" and too pro-Israel, and yet earlier posted that Obama's either a Muslim or will place his hand on a Koran at inauguration and is too "pro Muslim" and thus "anti Israel", then it's clear that Obama's enemies exist simply because he exists.
If Obama turns left, he's a baby killer abortionist. If he turns right, he's attacking something unjustly like Pakistan. Go forward, he's a socialist, go in reverse, he's a cut and runner, jump up, he's trying to be a messiah, stoop down, he dishonors the military like a coward. Maybe he can run the White House by standing on the porch steps, spinning in circles endlessly. Maybe that will that be good enough. All most ever wanted was simply to change from Bush.

To To WELL SAID wrote on Nov 23, 2008 8:14 PM:I can't.

Richard wrote on Nov 23, 2008 8:22 PM:It sounds like what the 7:18 post is saying is that if Obama were to deceive congressmen to vote for a war against a wrong country, drop geneva and torture people, spread false information obtained through torture to justify that war, spy on americans, ban the other party from a war planning room while a foreign dignitary is present in that room, that no one will have reason to impeach him.

Joe the Plumber wrote on Nov 23, 2008 8:29 PM:OK, MarineGunner at 5:22 p.m., at least now I understand why you didn't like Obama and thought him a socialist.
It is because you get your MISinformation from right-wing hate radio instead of the source himself.
Barack Obama NEVER talked about "redistribution of wealth" the same way as Republicans like Sarah Palin or Wally Hickel, or the current Bush administration that operates government takeovers of private companies.
He made an off the cuff resmark to an individual asking a question in a rope line. He was talking about TAX CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS, which apply exactly the same to every single person, including the rich, on the portion of ncome at those levels. There was NOTHING transferring any actual assets from one person to anyone else. I have the complete five-minute exchange, right on my little ol' iPhone. It is easy to find on YouTube.
In fact, Obama's explanation of taxes sounds remarkably similar to McCain's 2001 explanation of why he supports progressive (graduated) taxes. Do you think McCain is a socialist? Oh, and Adam Smith, the "Father of Capitalism," also supports progressive tax rates. So I guess you think he is a socialist, too?

Please stop being a sheep and just listening mindlessly to Limbaugh and Hannity.
Try a little original, critical thinking for once, and go to the actual source for your information.

jvc wrote on Nov 23, 2008 9:22 PM:Just watched a film called SOMETHING THE LORD MADE about how a medical
genius who is black and could not overcome racism in our society.
Irrespective of the election of Obama,
racism is very much a part of our society as much as we deny it!

Sally wrote on Nov 23, 2008 9:40 PM:No, the churches have not violated the constitution. They haven't caused the government to establish an official church and they have been exercising their constitutionally protected free exercise of religion. If the government attempts to meddle with the churches by taxing them, they are violating the separation of church and state.

Not So Well Said wrote on Nov 23, 2008 9:48 PM:The blog titled "To Well Said" at 6:24 p.m. asks, "Please explain the current liberal love of government, which as Washington said is not reason, but force?"
Oh give. me. a. break.
This is no different than the mindless drivel of those who blurt out "Socialism" every time they don't like something but can't think of an actual reason.
There is nothing about "liberalism" that loves "government" or "force."
This is just the Limbaugh/Hannity/Fox broken record of propaganda.
It is the Republicans who want to use the FORCE of GOVERNMENT to micromanage people's PRIVATE lives, such as who they love, private medical choices (reproductive choice, end of life choice, stem cell research, medical marijuana) and even using public facilities to FORCE participation in private religious observances.
But there IS a role for government that liberals understand.
It is to stand up to bullies, to maintain the order, protect equality of liberty, and stop a few corporate bullies from dominating and exploiting workers and consumers.
It is the opposite of force.
It is to protect the helpless against the FORCE of the powerful.
No wonder you have been suckered by the fear mongers who try to scare you about liberalism.
You don't understand what liberalism is.

To Not So Well Said wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:05 PM:As one who supports medical marijuana, reproductive rights, stem cell research and anyone loving whomever they please, AND WHO DEPLORES ORGANIZED RELIGION, why then am I so opposed to liberals?

Because that is not all liberals do. If they limited themselves to those issues I WOULD BE A LIBERAL! But I am not because they believe in economic slavery, theft of property, suppression of free speech and a lot of other things.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 23, 2008 11:04 PM:to: Joe the Plummer:

Nice sophism you got goin there. You go right on believing what you want. That is your right. Time will tell whether you are correct or not... and I hope you are still around to reap what you sow.

Meanwhile, I will do what I do, which is making sure you have the ability to speak your mind, follow your dreams and live your life free of oppression.

Best of luck to you and yours.

My Dear Sally wrote on Nov 24, 2008 5:54 AM:The Mormons, aka LDS, called from Utah to California to make Yes on 8 pitches, that IS crossing the line.
Both the Mormons and the Catholics had pulpit delivered Yes on 8 messages, that IS crossing the line.
These were acts of the churches and by the churches, sponsored by the churches and they DID cross the line.
They DID cross the line of church involvement in government and, with any degree of luck, they WILL pay the price.

Joe the Plumber wrote on Nov 24, 2008 8:31 AM:The blog titled "To Not So Well Said" at 10:05 p.m. coupled with the one from MarineGunner at 11:04 a.m., which was addressed to me, shows the fundamental weakness of conservative attacks on liberalism.
In both instances, they cannot find any specific issue to discuss.
They just make these blanket generalization that they copy from the Limbaugh/Hannity/Fox brainmasters they rely on to do their uncritical thinking for them (ditto this! megaditto that!).
No original thought analysis, critical thinking, or citation of specific issues whatsoever.

OK guys, put on your thinking caps, and try, real hard, just this once to come up with a thought of your own that is both original and specific.

"To Not So Well Said" makes blanket generalizations such as: "economic slavery, theft of property, suppression of free speech and a lot of other things" after earlier blogs already showed this far more relevant to Republicans than Democrats or liberals.

Similarly, I responded with specificity and detail to the earlier generalized ramblings from MarineGunner and he just sticks his head in the sand and dismisses it out of hand.
Note to MarineGunner: your mission as a soldier to unquestioningly follow orders only applies to military and combat roles. You are not required to do this in your role as a (supposed-to-be) thinking American citizen.

Alf wrote on Nov 24, 2008 8:33 AM:Well, "My Dear Sally" at 5:54AM on the 24th,
I also believe that the actions of the CHURCHES should cause those CHURCHES to get their tax exempt status revoked.
The parishioners can continue to practice their religion, but the line MUST be drawn and examples be made of those CHURCHES which believe that they can do anything they want with no consequences.
You're right, it is a two-way street and he who crosses that line will suffer the consequences of their actions in this world.
Regards, Alf.

Oh Karl wrote on Nov 24, 2008 8:38 AM:Don't be absurd about providing proof about Ron's post. Read his posts and read the replies to his posts every single day. There's your proof. That's the point. I got tired of seeing that proof multiple times a day. I also got tired of seeing Ron post the same claims repeatedly AFTER he'd been thoroughly called on his errors or misrepresentations. I guess you haven't. That's your problem. Have a great day.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 24, 2008 9:30 AM:To: My dear Sally,

Allow me to retort in the same manner in which "Anti Marine" responded to me:
Do you have proof that the Churches have done this? If you can provide links to this I will happily peruse them, and then say... Oh that is just a "report!" That is not proof!

Now, doesn't that sound silly and a bit shortsighted?

Moving on...

Now, lets assume that you are an athiest. Based on your post I would say that is a safe assumption. Do you realise that Athiesm is also a "religion"? Here is a definition for you: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

Athiests have faith that there is no G-d, they are certainly arduous in their belief of that.

Sure, it may not be as organized as the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church but it is still a religion.

See what I did there?

Joe the Plumber wrote on Nov 24, 2008 9:36 AM:Submitted at 8:31 a.m. and skipped while later blogs got processed.
Resubitted at 9:36 a.m.

The blog titled "To Not So Well Said" at 10:05 p.m. coupled with the one from MarineGunner at 11:04 a.m., which was addressed to me, shows the fundamental weakness of conservative attacks on liberalism.
In both instances, they cannot find any specific issue to discuss.
They just make these blanket generalization that they copy from the Limbaugh/Hannity/Fox brainmasters they rely on to do their uncritical thinking for them (ditto this! megaditto that!).
No original thought analysis, critical thinking, or citation of specific issues whatsoever.

OK guys, put on your thinking caps, and try, real hard, just this once to come up with a thought of your own that is both original and specific.

"To Not So Well Said" makes blanket generalizations such as: "economic slavery, theft of property, suppression of free speech and a lot of other things" after earlier blogs already showed this far more relevant to Republicans than Democrats or liberals.

Similarly, I responded with specificity and detail to the earlier generalized ramblings from MarineGunner and he just sticks his head in the sand and dismisses it out of hand.
Note to MarineGunner: your mission as a soldier to unquestioningly follow orders only applies to military and combat roles. You are not required to do this in your role as a (supposed-to-be) thinking American citizen.

To Joe wrote on Nov 24, 2008 1:15 PM:O. K. herein a Bill of Particulars, regarding Liberals:

Support of Eminent Domain for PRIVATE use (theft)
Support for “Hate Speech” restrictions as a violation for the First Amendment
Support for the McCain-Feingold Bill restricting TV campaigning close to an election in violation of the First Amendment
Progressive taxation as unequal treatment and wealth redistribution
Liberal campus support for re-segregation (Black dorms, and Black Student Unions0
Liberal campus denial of and intimidation for free speech on campus for conservatives
Intolerance toward Christians (demonstrated daily on these pages)
EXTREME hypocrisy as seen in the Gulfstream Liberals and limousine Liberals.

This will do until I have time to do more…

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 24, 2008 1:19 PM:To: Joe the Plummer:

First off. My response to you was @ 11:04 PM last night, that is POST-meridian not ANTI-meridian. Please try and be accurate.

Secondly: I am not a soldier. Soldiers serve in the Army. I am a Marine. Learn the difference. Marines are not taught to "unquestioningly follow orders". We are held accountable for our decisions and we are held responsible to our conscience as well as having an obligation to call B.S., at the appropriate time and place, when we are exposed to it. This tends to serve me well in my military life as well as my life as an American citizen. Do not insult my intelligence with your sanctimonious garbage.

Tertiary, I have tried responding with specifics, numerous times in the past and all I have gotten in response is the canned drivel that you keep spewing over and over: talk radio this and talk radio that, blah blah blah. When faced with specifics, you dismiss those specifics out of hand and just keep on promoting your liberal/socialist mantra, all the while attempting to overwhelm the opposition of your arguement using the same tactics you accuse me of using. Sorry, but I call B.S.

bill wrote on Nov 24, 2008 2:18 PM:Peggy Sloan must be pretty young if she didnt live thur Jimmy Carter. At lease have Carter we got Reagan. Hopefully it will happen again after Carter 2.

My Dear Sally wrote on Nov 24, 2008 4:29 PM:For reference, MarineGunner, please google the following (without quotes)and select the hit from the Sacramento Bee -
"Mormon church pulls plug on pro-Prop. 8 calls from Utah
By Aurelio Rojas".
Let's see if that fills the bill.
BTW, I also take issue with a Marine being called a soldier, American Troops is a way to include all branches of the service without insult.

Gringo wrote on Nov 24, 2008 4:40 PM:It is at best questionable whether or not any pro-8 messages were delivered from the pulpit. Please provide proof of this statement. But even if true, if no political messages can be spread from the pulpit, and if church-going folks aren't supposed to be involved in any politics, then the Democrat party is going to need to shut up and close down an awful lot of inner-city ministers, upon whom the Democrats rely to disperse their crooked "get out the vote" payoffs.

Alf wrote on Nov 24, 2008 6:56 PM:Democrats, "Gringo" at 4:40PM, are not a tax-exempt organization, churches are.
Nor was No on 8 using an out of state religious organization and its resources for political purposes.
See the comment by "My Dear Sally" at 4:29PM above.
Regards, Alf.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 24, 2008 7:54 PM:To: My Dear Sally,

Thank you for the direction to that link. I have done as you asked, I have read the article in question.I have read it and I do understand your point.
I will not dismiss what you have posted out of hand. At the same time I do not condone the tactics utilized by the oppposite faction as well, nor will I turn a blind eye to them.

Remember: Fair is fair and if you are going to condone one group you have to allow the opposite group equal time and opportunity to present their case.
See my post at 9:30 AM for distinction.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 24, 2008 8:54 PM:to: Alf
[-] wrote on Nov 24, 2008 6:56 PM:

If you want to use that excuse please see my comments that were written at: Nov 24, 2008 9:30 AM:

peace... out!