Stop the world wrote on Nov 25, 2008 2:45 AM:We have become more tolerant of gays than democrats or republicans. Hmmm who divided a nation?

Noah wrote on Nov 25, 2008 4:10 AM:Page 869 of Websters New World Dictionary:

marriage - relation between husband and wife. the state of, or relation between, a man and a woman who have become husband and wife.

Legal documents often begin with a table of definitions. Judicial activism forced CA to create such an entry in its constitution for the word marriage.

Nothing earth-shattering here. Nothing about homosexuals. Nothing about denying rights. Seems silly that we have to dedicate a portion of our constitution to defining our lexicon. But it's a step which must be taken when people distort what the meaning of a word is.

But then I guess some would still argue:
it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Alf wrote on Nov 25, 2008 5:00 AM:In her letter, Julia Godinez asked
"What makes Mr. Obama think he can make decisions on his own, without going to Congress or other advisers like he said? He was elected president, not king.".
She misses the obvious,
it would be better worded like this -
What makes Mr. GWB think he can make decisions on his own, without going to Congress or other advisers like he said? He was elected president, not king.
Wasn't it GWB who tried to push through an amnesty bill?
Hasn't it been GWB who has stalled and failed to secure our borders?
More importantly,
In over 7 years since 9/11, why do we still have sieves for borders?
Why do American Citizens have to remove their shoes when going on a flight?
Do we have OBL YET?
Regards, Alf.

OBAMAPREZ wrote on Nov 25, 2008 6:01 AM:Julia Godinez's letter is the perfect example of how starting from a flawed premise leads to a bizarre and ridiculous conclusion.
Like every candidate, Barack Obama stated policy goals.
But he was running for President, not god or "messiah."
Other than through executive orders (internal directives controlling the executive branch he heads), Obama will not be able to bypass or overturn lawfully-enacted agency regulations or acts of Congress without going through the proper channels for doing so.
Obama has never said he would attempt to bypass these usual checks and balances.
While he can express policy goals, like all presidents he will not be able to achieve all of them.
But then, of course, the same people who criticize him based on the erroneous assumption that he would somehow try to be even more dictatorial than Bush or Cheney, will also criticize him for any policy objective he falls short of.
Such is the sad reality of conservative circular "reasoning".

He Said wrote on Nov 25, 2008 6:15 AM:What a great idea, Elaine Coutu. Successful, well managed companies are certainly going to be interested in acquiring long term mismanaged companies which have driven themselves to be a noncompetitive factor in the marketplace. If I were you I'd create a letter writing campaign and convince the oil companies to do it. Brilliant!!

Freeway Camping wrote on Nov 25, 2008 6:29 AM:I agree with Jack Feller and the need to complete the toll road through San Onofre.

As far as protecting the campgrounds at San Onofre and San Mateo go, there’s not much to protect. They’re like most beach campgrounds in CA – on a freeway with constant traffic noise. It’s not like you’re putting a tollway through some quiet pristine place like Yosemite.

And the campsites at San Onofre west of I-5 are a joke. Little parking spaces with no room to even pitch a tent at most sites. The nearby truck scales make you think you’re at a loading dock. I stayed there once and it was the worst camping experience of my life.

Unbelievable wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:00 AM:What exactly do they teach over at the LDS anyways? Sounds like they are the most self-centered selfish bunch of people I have seen in a long time.

And on no! Obama is creating a diverse cabinet that reflects the people of the United States to better represent everybody! The horror!

How can one group of people force their beliefs on everybody else if we allow diversity?

I don't know what this world is coming to.

Assignment for Noah wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:01 AM:Try reading a historical dictionary like the OED. In general, what you find there is that over the centuries, the definitions of words change. What you find there is that any ordinary dictionary is something like a snapshot of current usage. As the gay struggle for equality continues, the meaning of the word "marriage" may shift (or not: it's possible that we all may decide to give them equality while preserving the current meaning of the word). Citing a dictionary as some authority on what a concept MUST mean is a mistake. Let's see what happens out here in the real world, and the dictionary, as it always has, will follow.

To Noah wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:02 AM:Webster's dead, what is your point? Webster also defines a witch as a green warty haggy old woman, but I am hardly that.

Wake up and get with the 21st century Noah dear.

Ron wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:03 AM:Yep, that's where it's headed Sybil Frances.

In other countries where same sex marriage has been made legal, the gay avtivists have gone way beyond in legal terms, and have made "hate-speech" illegal.
What is hate-speech to them?

Simply saying marriage should remain between a man and a woman.

It is the same approach that has these emotional cripples saying that if you deny man-made global warming, then you are equal to a holocaust denier.
These are the same kind of liberal despots who enforce speech codes on college campus's.

Noddy wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:06 AM:"But then I guess some would still argue: it depends on what your definition of "is" is."

No, it depends on whether it is you who are having your rights denied or not.

Ron wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:16 AM:Obama's cabinet should be very interesting to watch thru the comfirmation hearings. One person that recently caught my eye, was a supply-sider economist Christine Romer.

The confirmation hearing for Eric Holder should be a lot of fun.

Alf wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:22 AM:Well, "Noah" at 4:10AM,
as usual, people like you leave out those facts that disprove your point.
From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary -
"Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union "
OR from dictionary.reference.com
"mar⋅riage   /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mar-ij] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock."
Regards, Alf.

Twisted logic wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:31 AM:Raoul, Bill, and others have claimed here that the Iraq invasion and occupation was a good idea because it lured terrorists to Iraq and we killed many of them there. This, to me, is bizarre logic. Imagine that you're bin laden. By the same logic, he would say that Bush was lured into Iraq, far from him and his top brass. This led to the deaths of more than 4000 Americans! This led to Iraq being converted from a secular state led by Saddam, whom bin laden hates, to a more religious state that is an ally of Iran. This led to the opportunity for the Taliban, bin laden's protectors, to rebuild, support the opium harvest at record levels, and get the government of Afghanistan to sit down and bargain with the Taliban. This led to the President of Pakistan, who was an ally of the US, to be forced to tell the US to stop bombing there. What do you guys think of Bush's great "luring" plan now? Worst President ever!

to Noah wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:44 AM:I for one, do not live according to the dictionary. The dictionary and the bible should not dictate how we live.Oh and Noah, the name "NOAH" is of Hebrew origins meaning peaceful. I hope you are of Hebrew descent, and learn to live peacefully with your fellow homosexual humans.

She Said wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:51 AM:Hey, Jack Feller: Sorry about your friend's 5 1/2 hour trip to LA. But guess what? It will take him even longer to get back if the toll road is built. There will still be a back up from the Orange County border due to the merging traffic going onto I-5 south. This whole proposed project has nothing to do with total traffic relief. It's about O.C collecting taxes from the toll
road and newly built homes.

Caro Cogitatus wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:54 AM:Remember in the days after the election, when certain conservatives on this blog noted gleefully that the markets fell, ostensibly due to fear of Obama's economic policies?

I notice that, hearing Obama's plans and seeing his policy team assembled, the markets gained dramatically the very next days. As in, the biggest gains in decades.

Unlike some simple-minded (Oh, did I say "simple"? I meant "single". Really I did.) analysts here, I won't attribute a direct cause-and-effect.

But in order to avoid being seen as rank hypocrites, perhaps they will.

To Alf wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:03 AM:If you have a clear concise understanding of your idea, you should be able to fit it on the back of a business card.

She Said wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:08 AM:Actually, Noah, I'm not impressed with your namesake either. Allegedly, running around in a boat spewing animal and human waste in the water for forty days and nights.

All Ears wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:33 AM:Who would listen to Jack Feller?

Alf wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:36 AM:Well, "To Alf" at 8:03AM,
if you're talking about my 7:22AM post,
I could have listed only those which support my position, but then I'd be the one doing the cherry-picking and you'd be calling me on that!
Either way, you'd find fault, wouldn't you?
Regards, Alf.

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:53 AM:Joseph Williams' letter is half right
The published letter from Joseph Williams is absolutely correct that we need the peacetime equivalent of a "wartime economy" investment in broad-based economic recovery based on construction rather than destruction. However his statement that it was World War II that ended the Great Depression is a popular Republican myth aimed at undermining the heroic economic legacy of FDR. That myth has been repeatedly debunked.
Once again, here are the FACTS on unemployment rates 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% (full ten percent drop in just FOUR years!)
Everything prior to this point is before the earliest hints of war in Europe and cannot be attributed to that.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Alf wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:58 AM:Isn't it interesting, "Caro Cogitatus" at 7:54AM, that the ones who
BLAME Obama for stock market LOSSES
DO NOT CREDIT Obama with stock market GAINS?
Heads I win, tails you lose.
Regards, Alf.

WELL SAID wrote on Nov 25, 2008 9:04 AM:“One day before the CEOs of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler told the Senate Banking Committee that their industry faced imminent collapse without an emergency infusion of $25 billion, a new automobile assembly plant opened for business in Greensburg, Indiana. Although the hearing on Capitol Hill received far more media coverage, the unveiling of Honda's latest facility in the American heartland speaks volumes about the future of the U.S. car industry—and shows why the proposed bailout of Detroit's Big Three is so misguided. The intellectual arguments against an auto industry bailout are well established. Taxpayers should never be forced to subsidize any company, let alone a poorly run company. Subsidizing the Big Three would be tantamount to subsidizing failure. That's bad policy.” – Daniel J. Ikenson (The American, Nov 21, 2008).

To Joe wrote on Nov 25, 2008 9:06 AM:(Resubmitted second day)

Joe the Plumber says: “No original thought analysis, critical thinking, or citation of specific issues whatsoever.”

O. K. herein a Bill of Particulars of why I am not a liberal, although I support medicinal marijuana, the right to love whomever you choose, reproductive rights, stem cell research, and I do not favor religion(s)::

I oppose 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 Unions)
Liberal campus denial of and intimidation for free speech on campus for conservatives
Intolerance toward Christians (demonstrated daily on these pages) I am non-religious, not anti-religious, because I am more tolerant than liberals.
EXTREME hypocrisy as seen in the Gulfstream Liberals and limousine Liberals
Support for the inherent use of physical force and physical intimidation by unions
Support for the abandonment of the secret ballot in union representation votes
Support for the “Fairness Doctrine(sic): to stifle dissent by conservatives
General opposition to maintaining a strong military and police
Support for some of the ACLU more outrageous opinions, like support for NAMBLA
Support for Open Borders and Amnesty for lawbreakers
Support for “No Enemies on the Left” and refusal to condemn excesses of Castru, Chavez, et al…

While this list is incomplete, it will do until I have time to do more Believe me there is a LOT more!

Ron wrote on Nov 25, 2008 9:11 AM:Ira Landis asks: "How can this occur in 2008?"

We are not strangers to piracy, and certainly to this particular brand of it, Muslim piracy.
Ask Thomas Jefferson.

Ya see, here's the problem with Lib's.
They constantly want to beat a dead horse, they simply WILL NOT learn the lesson's from history.
Jefferson as Ambassador to the United States met this challenge head on, at a time when the entire world was paying off pirates, instead of confrontation.
Ya see, Lib's don't like confrontation, unless it's white christians inside their own country, then... their very confrontational.
But under the bullwark of diversity and multiculturalism, they cowardly appeal, yes.. appease these kind of criminals.
Always believing that: "If they could only just see that we are good people, then.. they will come to us, and compromise with us."
NOT.

Jefferson tried that, and was told simply: "You are not even a man."
Faced with this new reality, Jeffeerson bought a Koran in an attempt to understand the Muslim mind. He concluded, there was no compromise that could be sought, and that only defeat was an option.
He then pursued building a Navy, so that business vessels could safely pass without being harmed.
Imagine that? Using the military to pursue business/capitalism?
Today, by the Left, we are told, we are lectured, that this is US Imperialism.
But, they still want their gas, their cars, their imported goods....
hypocrites.
Currently, the pirates know that we will defend our merchant vessels, and they are pursuing only Euro and other nations who are appeasers. The Dutch are sailing clear around the Horn of Africa just to avoid a confrontation.
Learn the lesson's from history my friend, it's save you money, it's save you lives, and it'll save you from the insanity of doing the same things, but expecting different results.

Diaz and the Law wrote on Nov 25, 2008 9:14 AM:You know I really thought all of this stuff about Olga Diaz not respecting "our" laws was just campaign black propaganda. I really thought that with the campaign over people would drop those stupid accusations.
Letter writer Bill Schiefler proves me wrong. He says:
"As a person with little or no regard for our laws, how will Ms. Diaz act to protect and serve our neighborhoods?"
Does this comment even make any sense at all? She owns two businesses in our city, lives here, raises a family here, married to a policeman etc, oh and by the way BORN AND RAISED IN THE USA.......
Does it really make sense to you that she would be for lawlessness and anarchy? The letter is just pure stupidity.

Ron wrote on Nov 25, 2008 9:20 AM:Always the kidder...
my good buddy "Wiz" @ anytime.

Just gotta keep putting out truth, when all your getting is half of it.

Let me amend the Wiz kid's numbers, so that you get the complete picture, and not the mythology Wiz like's to repeat, he'll give you only what cards he wants you to see, but the joker is waiting at the bottom of the deck.
1933 thru 1937 he'll post, and then he'll boast of a 10% reduction...
What he'll not tell you, is that in 1938, the very next year, the unemployment rate jumped back up to 19%, a 5 point increase in just one year. Here's how that list should read:

1933 - 24.95%
1934 - 21.7%
1935 - 20.2%
1936 - 16.9%
1937 - 14.3%
1938 - 19.0%

In our time, 5% unemployment is full employment, for all practical purposes.

Some other things you should know:
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and the Fair Labor Standards Act caused the
year-long recession, and the GNP fell 4.5 percent, causing unemployment to rise.
Ya see? Direct government action, and over reaching caused it.
As for the 10% drop in unemployment, you just remember, most of those folks became government workers, for all intensive purposes.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 25, 2008 9:25 AM:Caro Cogitatus
[-] wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:54 AM:

"I notice that, hearing Obama's plans and seeing his policy team assembled, the markets gained dramatically the very next days. As in, the biggest gains in decades."

Umm, this is not accurate, in fact it is a downright lie. You saw a 1 day gain of about 450 points last Friday, after multiple days of losing 400+ points.

Today, the market, last I checked is at about 8400. That is substantially lower than where it was at when this all started. Remember, it was at or near 14000 points less than a year ago. In the past 3 months it has gone from near 11000 to where we are at today.

Obama has nothing to do with it either way.

The Buggy Whip Factory wrote on Nov 25, 2008 9:30 AM:I see (Rosemarie Mamaghani) the Library Mavens United (LMU) have joined in the Defense of Libraries Movement.

(The LMU are differentiated from the Mass Transit Forever Group (MTFG) by their occasional letter writing campaigns, usually only to defend, as opposed to the MTFG who are in continual motion. The LMU is also more female-oriented, and the MTFG is more European-centric.

In either case, they are a Special Interest Group (SIG), but they are a favorable SIG as opposed to unfavorable SIGs like “Big Oil” or Big Three Automobile, or even worse the Mobile Home Park Owners.

Face it! Libraries are the modern buggy-whip factories, and there are more than 700 tax-funded libraries in San Diego County because they are in EVERY SCHOOL! (O.K. – taxpayers pay for those, but taxpayers can’t use them!)

Libraries are a UAW-style Job Bank for otherwise unemployable college graduates; a free air-conditioned and heated private club with comfortable chairs and quiet for elderly magazine readers; and in urban areas, a homeless respite from police hassles.

to Alf wrote on Nov 25, 2008 9:38 AM:Regarding your 8:58 post, that was true for Bush as well. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it will indeed be interesting to watch how the Democrats handle the criticisms.

Caro Cogitatus wrote on Nov 25, 2008 9:51 AM:Alf (@8:58am),

As usual, you stated it more succinctly and clearly than I.

So, which is it, conservatives? Does Obama influence the markets or not?

bodecea wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:04 AM:To Ron,

I call shenanigans on your assertions about other countries and hate speech.

However, let me point out that no other country has the Bill of Rights as we do. Have you forgotten that?

Karl wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:27 AM:jvc
[-] wrote on Nov 24, 2008 7:57 PM:If we do not balance the state budget and are deficit spending ...does that mean we are getting more services than
we are entitled to?

Seems logical to me JVC. Good one!

Peace

jzawd

Caro Cogitatus wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:40 AM:Ron (@9:11am) is constructing his usual Straw Men to knock down.

Hey, Ron, while you're telling me what I think, can you also make me look like Brad Pitt?

to to Joe wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:44 AM:I'm not sure you have a lot of your facts right about liberals. For example, I consider myself a lifelong liberal. I completely agree with you about eminent domain. I think a strong military and police are necessary (though I believe that the size of the military we have is far, far more than is needed to be "strong"...we spend more on military than just about the rest of the world put together; I also believe that police are necessary, but that they need to be watchdogged carefully. These are regular people and we give them enormous power, so we gotta watch them.) I do not believe the propaganda about denying free speech to conservatives on campuses (my guess is that when they are disagreed with, they whine about this). I don't see the hypocrisy of Gulfstream liberals because they no doubt pay lots of taxes but don't whine about it being unfair. Liberals are not against people earning money. Liberals are not communists, for example. I support unions very strongly, but do not suport thuggery by anyone, military or union. As a liberal, I have always condemned the likes of Castro and Chavez when they violate human rights. No one hates dictators as much as liberals, and, unlike, say, Bush or Reagan, I don't support dictators when it's in my political interest to do so. I guess that either I'm not a liberal or you're wrong about "what liberals believe". Thanks for you post, though. It's great to have these kinds of things aired clearly.

To Ron wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:51 AM:"Ron
[-] wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:03 AM:
Yep, that's where it's headed Sybil Frances.

In other countries where same sex marriage has been made legal, the gay avtivists have gone way beyond in legal terms, and have made "hate-speech" illegal.
What is hate-speech to them?

Simply saying marriage should remain between a man and a woman."

Ron, you are such a ... LIAR.

Lawrence wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:52 AM:To cite the dictionary definition of "marriage" as the basis for being for or against the right of gay persons to "marry" is like arguing in a sealed cube. It has nothing to do with the issues. The persons that argue with this kind of "logic" are wasting their time. What scares me is that such persons are allowed to vote at all.

OMG wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:55 AM:To Ron at 9:11

Oh my goodess, Ron, you are not even close to understanding the pirate problem! Stop listening to Fox News, willya? You are embarrassing yourself more than usual!

Edd wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:56 AM:Re: David Teten's innocuous threat of a strike. Cripple the Nation?? Barney Frank would be doing us a favour if he "struck" for the next four years.

Protecting everybodys rights... wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:56 AM:Sybil Frances wrote "Recently, a same-sex couple filed a complaint in a New Jersey court against a Methodist church demanding the church allow their civil union to take place at a Methodist-owned facility, despite the fact that this Methodist Church does not believe in gay civil unions."

Please give more information so that we can verify this story. Or is it another hearsay urban myth that has NO basis in reality? So many stories have been made up to support the fear of forcing churches to do something against their beliefs. Is this another one? There is nothing in the language of California law that would suggest that that would happen in California. You see, Sybil, there really is NO struggle between your rights to believe anything you want and gay's right to marry. No one's straight marriage has ended because of someone else's gay marriage. I don't think too many of us really want to be married in your church(es). The kind of God and teachings that make me forever a lost and hated sinner because of the way He Himself created me is NOT my God. My Christ was sent to show God's love and compassion, not retribution and hate. You sound like a basically decent person. Don't be misled by the lies being told all around you. Lies, originating not from the true Word and Spirit of God, but from so called christian moralists who feel it is their duty to preserve and present a distorted and untrue version of the Almighty.

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:57 AM:Misunderstanding Liberalism
The post from "To Joe" (9:06am) shows that the real reason some people oppose liberalism is that they do not understand it. I am probably one of the more liberal participants in this forum and --
1. I oppose any and all conversion of private property for private benefit of other private parties through eminent domain or otherwise. I strongly disagreed with the case of Kelo v. New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005).
2. I oppose any restrictions on speech based on opinion, though I do support limits on yelling "Fire!" in a theatre or stirring up overt acts of violence which go beyond mere speech.
3. I support limitations on campaign spending and do NOT equate money with speech, which it can buy, any more than I equate money with a car, which it can buy. I do not support any specific limits on TV ads near an election and oppose that portion of McCain's flawed bill.
4. I do agree with Adam Smith, John McCain and Warren Buffet that progressive taxation is appropriate and is NOT "wealth redistribution" since it treats all income in equivalent layers equally.
5. There is no hypocrisy in liberals who are wealthy who support equality of opportunity for others to achieve the same.
6. Unions do not inherently use force or intimidation; they use the collective power of MARKET FORCES.
7. Liberals do not oppose strong military and police. We do, however, understand that proactive preventing problems is more efficient than ONLY reactive, responsive corrective measures.
8. NAMBLA supports pedophilia, a crime; ACLU supports civil liberties and equal justice. The characterization here is not valid.
9. No liberal that I know supports full amensty or "open borders" -- we do support humane measures for dealing with existing realities.
10. Liberals do condemn Castro, many other dictators, and the excesses of Chavez and also the Bush buddies in Saudi Arabia. This is an inaccurate misrepresentation of liberal views.

Again, the bottom line is that your dislike of liberalism is based on an inaccurate view of us.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Lawrence wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:07 AM:In my opinion taking on Afghanistan was a good move. The invasion scattered the terrorists and inhibited further action by them. Before they finished the job there they took on Iraq.
Unfortunately the Bush, Chaney, Rumsfield cabal did not have the sole objective of fighting terrorism. They wanted to make the world safe for oil by destroying the influence of Sadaam Husein in the middle east. There was no need to invade Iraq until we were through in Afghanistan. We were looking down their throats militarily with our bases in Kuiwait, Saudi Arabia and in Afghanistan. Even if the lie that there were WMDs in Iraq were true Iraq could never have have used them under those conditions.
I don't know much about the religious divisions in the middle east, but I believe I know that the Sunni and Shite Muslims hate each other. The Sunni's controlled Iraq before we went there. Now the Sunni's control because they are the majority. Iran is primarily Shite and they like the present situation better than when the Sunni's were in control. Great strategy.

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:15 AM:Ron's Misrepresentation of FDR Comments
The post from "Ron" (9:20am) returns to his usual bad habit of complete misrepresentation of others' posts.
He says that I do not want to show the complete history of FDR employment stats.
Yet I have posted the complete history of those stats many times, all the way through WWII, and many of those were specifically in response to "Ron" so he knows that he is misrepresenting the facts.
I have repeatedly noted that by 1938, when Hitler began retooling for war in Europe, but BEFORE our own retooling kicked in, it caused the markets to become nervous which generated a spike in unemployment until our own military investment caught up with it.

In the present case I was only talking about the recovery from the Depression, not the separate wartime jitters followed by the wartime economy issues, so in the interest of space I stopped at that point.

I'll have to ask "Ron" whether this blatant misrepresentation of my past posts is due to memory failure on his part or intentional deception. Which is it, "Ron"?
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Lawrence wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:17 AM:The problem with "working class" conservatives is that they do not understand the world has changed. It amazes me how they vote against their economic interests. Globalization is forcing a lower standard of living on middle class working people. This is more evident in the midwest manufacturing areas, but it is slowly spreading across the country. The rich think in terms of global production and where they can do it cheaper.
It is interesting that Obama is talking about offering incentives for companies that create jobs in America. For this to be successful of course these jobs will be at lower rates of pay. At least it will be a job.

Caro Cogitatus wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:18 AM:"To Joe" (@9:06am) has an odd concept of liberal thought. I certainly don't speak for all liberals, but I proudly wear the label. Let's see how many I agree with:

Support of Eminent Domain for PRIVATE use (theft) No
Support for “Hate Speech” restrictions as a violation for the First Amendment No
Support for the McCain-Feingold Bill restricting TV campaigning close to an election in violation of the First Amendment Yes Campaign financing is a sticky issue. We can definitely improve on McCain-Feingold, and we should. So I'll cop to this one, although it's not that simple.
Progressive taxation as unequal treatment and wealth redistribution Yes In defense of progressive taxation, it was also approved of by that ultra-liberal economist, Adam Smith.
Liberal campus support for re-segregation (Black dorms, and Black Student Unions) Yes If it's the students doing it, it's freedom of association. If it's the school, then we've got a problem.
Liberal campus denial of and intimidation for free speech on campus for conservatives No Where are conservatives denied free speech? And remember, "free speech" does not mean "unanswered speech".
Intolerance toward Christians (demonstrated daily on these pages) I am non-religious, not anti-religious, because I am more tolerant than liberals. No I'm very intolerant of hypocritical Christians who pick and choose which parts of the Bible they follow, but Christians in general I get along very well with.
EXTREME hypocrisy as seen in the Gulfstream Liberals and limousine Liberals No Like who?
Support for the inherent use of physical force and physical intimidation by unions No
Support for the abandonment of the secret ballot in union representation votes No The Employee Free Choice Act added to the means to create unions. It abandoned nothing.
Support for the “Fairness Doctrine(sic): to stifle dissent by conservatives No Okay, this is where you you've internalized the GOP Talking Points misinformation. Again, "free speech" does not mean "unanswered speech".
General opposition to maintaining a strong military and police No We just want them used more intelligently.
Support for some of the ACLU more outrageous opinions, like support for NAMBLA Yes Badly stated, as the ACLU is not in favor of NAMBLA. It is in favor of the Constitutional rights of all Americans, even the gutter slime of NAMBLA. When you start taking away Constitutional rights based on whether people like you or not, you're on the road to fascism.
Support for Open Borders and Amnesty for lawbreakers No Another Talking Point misinformation moment. It's always binary, isn't it? Either you're for zero tolerance, or you're for 100% open borders. It's a bit more complicated than that, and those durned brown furriners are a big part of California's farm economy.
Support for “No Enemies on the Left” and refusal to condemn excesses of Castro, Chavez, et al… No What planet are you from? Liberals *invented* the circular firing squad.

So for me, a proud liberal, it's 4 of 15. Many of them I vehemently disagree with, too.

It's okay to use the "L" word, even if you don't agree with everything that any liberal does.

To Alf wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:18 AM:Please forgive the poor fools. They mereley repeat what Sean Hannity spews out, so obvioulsy they sound like complete morons. If the stock market goes down it's Obama's fault. If the stock market goes up it's because Sean Hannity is a great American.

He Said wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:20 AM:Although Tom Charbonneau in his letter makes some good points, he totally misrepresents (probably not on purpose) the salaries and earnings of the corporate officers of the auto companies. Not one comes close to 30 million and the depth of those earning over 1 million does not even approach the 100 he claims. The compensation packages for the GM and Ford to managers is easily found on the internet. Some Chrysler management (about 30) did receive some retention bonuses of around one million from a program by Daimler who wanted to indicate to the buyer (Cerebrus) that the transition would go smoothly. Why do letter writers make statements with no real knowledge of the circumstances? I almost directs the readers to discount the whole letter due to credibility issues.

sdraoul wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:21 AM:DD continues his disgraceful posting of partial labor statistics for the first five years of the FDR administration in an effort to revise history..

By eliminating 1938 from his posts he gives huzzahs to FDR when, in fact FDR's various programs did little or nothing to bring the country out of Depression unemployment.

He does not, for example, post that workers are not counted if they drop out of looking for work after a designated number of weeks. When they do, they are no longer counted as unemployed.

Millions of men dropped out of the labor market after years of FDR. His job creation efforts were directed only at white men, not women, not blacks and in California the efforts were directed at Hispanics who were swept up in the streets, locked up in cattle cars and deported to Tijuana when the cattle cars were full.

American citizens were rounded up and deported. This was a tip off that FDR would round up American citizens of Japanese background ten years later and detained in
Barbed wire surrounded camps for the duration of the War with Japan.

Hispanics deported illegally by the FDR administration in the 30s were deducted from the labor market thus lowering unemployment rates in California.

Deducting employed American citizen workers from the labor market by deportation then allowed white men to fill the empty jobs. This illegal deportation activity coupled with cutting unemployment rolls by watching men drop out of job seeking (such as the white farmer who was driven from his land in Oklahoma to California where he found work vacated by deported American citizens) helped lower unemployment statistics.

Despite this trickery and racial preferences, unemployment spiked upward in 1938 despite DD’s attempt to hide that fact.

Alf wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:25 AM:Well, "to Alf" at 9:38AM,
aside from starting an illegal war in Iraq, doing his level best to shred the Constitution, stepping on the Constitutional rights of American Citizens, what has GWB done right?
Don't give me any BULL about fixing Iraq, HE BROKE IT!
Regards, Alf.

William wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:31 AM:To All Ears, well said.

tjefferson wrote on Nov 25, 2008 12:02 PM:Ron is reinventing history again. His 9:11 a.m. fabrication of Jefferson's study of the Koran and the Barbary Pirates is pathetic. Jefferson did not buy it to "try to understand the Muslim mind" in response to the Barbary pirates. Jefferson bought George Sale's English translation at the office of the Virginia Gazette when he was a student in 1765 because had a lifelong interest in ALL religions. He was 22 years old at the time of the purchase, decades away from dealing with the pirates as Secretary of State, Vice President, or President. Jefferson wrote about the purchase in his Literary Commonplace Book which he kept between the ages of 15-30. Unfortunately, Ron obviously gets his history from right wing hacks and has made a fool of himself yet again. I don't like to enter Ron's fantasy world. I resisted calling him out on Sunday concerning the 3rd or 4th of his Jefferson fabrications that I've caught. This time I couldn't help myself. Two big "Ron lies" about Jefferson in just 2 days is too much.

esteban wrote on Nov 25, 2008 12:10 PM:Alf...belly ache all you want, but Iraq IS better now than under Saddam. We can argue all day whether or not it was a good move to go in but things are definately improving despite what your hero Olbermann says. The gov't isn't kidnapping and torturing people just for kicks. Sure, there are thugs killing people, but less than before, and is getting better. They have elections that in time will be more secure. Infrastructure is being rebuilt everyday and more jobs are being created. People can actually go out in public now without the fear of being blown up. Are all the threats over yet? Of course not, but it's getting better each day. Rome wasn't built in a day. Don't take this as me loving everything Bush did. Yes he fought the war while trying to be PC and it cost the lives of 4,000 men, and for that he's an idiot. That aside, things are improving and you can't deny that....but you will because that's what liberals...er,uh...independants do.

Alf wrote on Nov 25, 2008 12:13 PM:Well, "To Alf" at 11:18AM,
I knew it! It's a Sean Hannity plot!
Better that than a Bill O'Spin plot!
Regards, Alf.

Karl wrote on Nov 25, 2008 12:53 PM:Caro Cogitatus @ 9:51 AM:

Conservative checking in here Caro

To an extent he does indeed influence the market in both directions. He is not the only factor however.

Peace

hh552

Karl wrote on Nov 25, 2008 12:59 PM:Lawrence @ 11:17 AM:

the problem with "working class" Liberals is that they thinka all "working class" Conservatives are robots and think alike. Pshaw.

Peace

ds611

Karl wrote on Nov 25, 2008 1:03 PM:Alf @ 11:25 AM:

"what has GWB done right?" m

He's hired more minorities by far than any other President. How's Obama doing in that category? I haven't been keeping track and truly would like to know.

Peace

pryxb
ik8c9

Wanda wrote on Nov 25, 2008 1:28 PM:Hey, Karl, at 12:59 PM, what's with the "ds611" at the end of your post?

Nuff Said wrote on Nov 25, 2008 1:28 PM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:21 AM:
You and Ron are constantly on a FDR theme. We don't care/ This is almost 2009.
FDR was a great President. That is why the American people elected him President FOUR TIMES. Get over it.

Mistake wrote on Nov 25, 2008 1:33 PM:Bush should have invaded Iran instead of Iraq. They're the ones who want to blow up Israel off the map. They're the ones who are trying to develop nuclear weapons. They're the ones who support terrorism with funding and supplies. Why oh why did we not invade Iran?

Nuff Said wrote on Nov 25, 2008 1:36 PM:esteban[-] wrote on Nov 25, 2008 12:10 PM:
Better off?
2 million dispersed within Iraq.
2 million fled Iraq.
70,000 dead Iraqi civilians.
Electricity and dirty water only available 6 hours in Baghdad, the national capital.
The contractors have roobed us and the Iraqi blind.
We are not in the business of building Rome and should not have a policy of regime change.
4200 dead Americans and over 30,000 wounded to fight the wrong enmesh and in the wrong country.
Esteban has peddled this malarky previously on this blog. ...

jvc wrote on Nov 25, 2008 1:36 PM:Let me use a Conservative tactic here to defend Obama against his critics:
If you are against Obama, you are against America!If you are against Obama,you cutting and running! If you are against Obama, you are not a patriot!If you are against Obama, you
are are not one of us!If you are against Obama, you are against us and for them!

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 25, 2008 1:40 PM:More Misrepresentations of the FDR Record
The post from "sdraoul" (11:21am) joins "Ron" in misrepresentating my previous history of comments regarding FDR's role in ending the Great Depression. My post at 11:15am applies equally to "sdraoul" though, in fairness, he probably had not seen it at the time he submitted his.

Blogeditors have expressed preferences for shorter posts limited to single subjects, and since the influences of the 1938-39 war jitters and the wartime recovery factors are really unrelated to the initial FDR-generated recovery, I did not include them in my earlier post, though I have on MANY previous occasions, as both "sdraoul" and "Ron" both know very well.

"sdraoul" then blathers off on tangents irrelevant to my point, such as the racial inequality of that time and the disgraceful Japanese internment, which I have expressed my disdain for in the past. Unlike conservatives, we liberals do not mindlessly give our own a free pass when we disagree with them, and I have some points of disagreement with every Democrat who has ever been elected. Again, since I have stated this in the past, "sdraoul" is just looking for an easy way to avoid, evade and dodge the actual issue. Again.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

no on Feller wrote on Nov 25, 2008 2:10 PM:Just re-elected and Jack Feller's true colors start to show. Being in the hip pocket of every developer in San Diego and Orange County must be tough. Building more freeways and toll roads does zilch to affect traffic. What it does is open up more areas to development. It's a proven fact as we can tell by just looking around North County. And a toll road is a big money-maker. I find it interesting that Mr. Feller did not write his letter before the election. We are going to be really sorry we didn't elect Chuck Lowerey.

to Mistake wrote on Nov 25, 2008 2:27 PM:Iran is a whole different ballgame than Iraq. Iran has about 65 million people and a huge army. Iraq has about 28 million and was pretty much destroyed already. Iran is Shiite and the rest of the Shia Middle East would explode if we tried anything that stupid. And who says we have to invade countries and slaughter thousands of civilians just because we don't agree with them? Has Iran ever attacked the good ole USA? Do we have to invade nations that disagree with Israeli expansionism? Good thing you won't be Secretary of State.

Well as far wrote on Nov 25, 2008 2:35 PM:as Obama goes....yes our border's will be open. It has always been the will of a democratic president to that. Obama should be focused on American jobs. Direct TV, ORchard credit cards, Capital one.... all use off shore call centers. You can't speak to any customer service agent with out knowing a forgien language. I can't understand them. The big wig companies are taking American jobs away from Americans. I have cancelled all my accounts with these copmanies and I will refuse to work with any other company that has taken their call centers out of America.

Alf wrote on Nov 25, 2008 2:37 PM:Well, "esteban" at 12:10PM,
how you can make your assertions is beyond me.
Is the infrastructure of Iraq better now than in February of 2003?
Are the schools, libraries, hospitals, roads, power, water and drain systems of Iraq better now than in February 2003?
Are the people who had to abandon their homes in Iraq and flee beter off now than in February 2003?
Are the tens or hundreds of thousands of DEAD Iraqi civilians better off now than in Februay 2003>
Are the over 4,200 DEAD American Trppos better off now than in February 2003?
After shelling out over $700 BILLION dollars AND COUNTING in Iraq, is the U.S. economy better off now than in February 2003?
I don't believe so.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Nov 25, 2008 2:41 PM:One more thing, "esteban" at 12:10PM,
you say "Infrastructure is being rebuilt everyday and more jobs are being created."
I ask
Who screwed that infrastructure up so that it must be repaired?
Regards, Alf

jvc wrote on Nov 25, 2008 2:42 PM:What do these blogs really show us aside from the obvious of a potpourri of ideas for us to think about? This
media actually gives voice to
voices of concern about the quality of life for the community!This being the case, we must find methods to properly
support the NCT so that it can continue to properly provide us with the venue of voices of concern on community issues!In this respect, the NCT is our newspaper and should be supported like the family member that it truly is!
And to strengthen the economic well being of the NCT is synonymous with strengthening our community!And, to help the NCT become financially more profitable, I hope it would consider creating a newspaper web site accessible by paid membership!

To Esteban wrote on Nov 25, 2008 2:54 PM:When Saddam was in charge in Iraq, there was peace precisely because he was a non-religious barbarian and mean as he--. Under Saddam, women attended college and became doctors, lawyers and teachers, etc. Women were NOT forced to wear clothes which hid their bodies and scarves to hide their hair. Women could walk alone without a man to chaperone them. Under Saddam, Christians, all Muslem sects and Jews shared neighborhoods in peace. Maybe this happened because the people were terrified of Saddam if they didn't get along,etc. But, aren't we FORCING those same people to live together now -- and FAILING? Before GWB's holy war the people had electricity, clean water, sewage plants, street sweepers, a beautiful museum full of priceless antiquities, scholars, happy children, etc. They had decent hospitals and a university for all!! GWB's war destroyed all those. AND - when you say it's better than before, you are wrong. We still haven't fixed what we broke, most of the Christians and Jews have fled the country, and the Muslem sects fight amonst themselves. You see, Saddam stopped all that because he was big and mean -- if we have success at all now, it's because we are big and mean!!! Long ago, I wrote a letter stating that we cannot unite the three tribes of Mesopotamia -- they've hated each other for an eternity -- and always will. They can either be separated or FORCED to live together in peace. VG

To CARO wrote on Nov 25, 2008 3:16 PM:When is our beloved President elect going to do something? I heard nothing but "yes we can" and now, in the middle of the financial disaster he helped generate...he has dissapeared!

Can Democrats give money to every two-bit company with their hand out? YES WE CAN! Can Nancy Pelosi use a private, government jet to fly around the country with her friends while pointing the finger at Auto CEO's? YES WE CAN!

Do we have a "deer in the headlights" look on our new Pres? Will the country plummet into economic disaster under him? YES WE CAN!

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 25, 2008 3:17 PM:Learning from the Past
The post from "Nuff Said" (1:28pm) notes that one valid evidence of FDR's greatness was that it was recognized by those who lived through his heroic economic rescue and elected him FOUR TIMES.
However, in fairness to "sdraoul" and "Ron," there are some important lessons to be learned from FDR, though "sdraoul" and "Ron" stubbornly refused to learn them, as they cling to their desperate efforts to discredit the great man's economic policies.
The incontrovertible FACT is that it was his "bubble up" Keynesian full employment that ended the Great Depression.

But what do they get from trying to claim that it was really the wartime economy that should get the credit?
As I have noted before, and as the letter from Joseph Williams correctly notes (per my 8:53am post in reply), the only reason that a DESTRUCTIVE event such as WAR can promote PROSPERITY is that the full employment it generates is such a powerful example of Keynesian "bubble up" that it can offset even the powerful devastation of war!
How much more powerful if we can harness the peacetime equivalent of a "wartime economy" investment in broad-based economic recovery based on construction rather than destruction.
This is what FDR achieved in the original New Deal, and what the current economic crisis calls for today.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Alf is a clown-show wrote on Nov 25, 2008 3:23 PM:I don't care what Esteban wrote, but Alf is pretty much wrong on every account.
Did you write "hundreds of thousands dean Iraqi civilians?" Why don't you take a quick-sec and go do some 5th grade research; you'll find the truth.

What is the price you put on a better future for an entire country? You seem pretty grumpy that we spent $700 billion, is that your limit? Is $699 billion ok to spend on a new future for an entire country?

Just curious what Emperor Alf will allow for the common man and common good. Don't worry, you'll get to keep all your money you are so worried about.

FDR wrote on Nov 25, 2008 3:24 PM:What the heck is an FDR?

Ms M wrote on Nov 25, 2008 3:38 PM:Well as far
[-] wrote on Nov 25, 2008 2:35 PM:....It has always been the will of a democratic president to that....um, that last time I checked we currently have a republican president that pushed for amnesty.

I agree with you about the call centers. The only problem is that I can't find too many companies that don't have call centers in another country. What I do when I get connected to a foreigner I ask to be transferred back to America. While I am waiting (I have yet to have my request denied), I send an email to that particular companies corporate office and let them know that I will not talk to someone who is doing a job that should be handled in America. When I get the American rep they are so very thankful that I took the time to let corporate know that jobs need to come back home.

But DD Wiz wrote on Nov 25, 2008 3:51 PM:Making things go boom is so much more fun!

Ron wrote on Nov 25, 2008 4:15 PM:Wow!?
Is that the best "lie" you can come up with "tjefferson" @12:02 PM?

Now, just for argument sake....
I'm going to say the timeframe in which Jefferson bought the book, is as, my good friend says, he bought the book 1765, when He was 22 years, and decades away from dealing with the pirates as Secretary of State, Vice President, or President.

Let's just say for now, that he's right, and I have my dates mixed up.

Does that change anything of what Jefferson actually did? No.. it doesn't.
You see, this is something about Lib's I'll never understand, it is this...
technocratic personality disorder over minutia.

So, other than the date, everything else checks out with you? LOL
good god....

Pluto wrote on Nov 25, 2008 4:18 PM:To Noah @4:10am. What's so hard to understand? We're going to redefine marriage to include gays and lesbians.

Ron wrote on Nov 25, 2008 4:22 PM:Since I've been busy paying the taxes so some could sit in their chair all day and type....

After reading a few posts from my good friend, the Wiz @ anytime...
Always remember this with the Wizzer.
He has to show you only part of the history, because the very next part totally disolves his mythology.

He rants and raves about a 10% drop in unemployment over a 5 year period, and when half of that (5%) is lost in a SINGLE year, he says nothing.
Why?
It's how they keep the myth and the mythology alive.
Just as I show each time he wants to show how budgets were balanced, I show you how they were done, by cutting government.
Not raising taxes, they cut huge amounts of government.
LBJ jettisoned Fannie, and Clinton savagely cut into the military.
Not taxes, not programs...
Less government.

And everyone reading this know's it too, cause.. how do you balance?
In your own private life?
Yeah, you start cutting back.
Government don't, it grows.

OBAMAPREZ wrote on Nov 25, 2008 4:36 PM:The blog titled "Well as far" at 2:35 p.m. looks like another conservative getting MISINFORMATION about liberals from those trying to discredit liberalism.
This person stubbornly insists that Obama supports open borders.
NO HE DOES NOT.
Where do you people get this stuff from?
I have heard his speeches, studied his website and devoured independent analyses.
If you have better sources, please cite them. And I ain't talkin' about Limbaugh/Hannity/Fox.
The FACT is that Obama supports dealing with those who are here in a humane manner, but he does NOT support open borders. Nominating Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, a border hawk, for Secretary of Homeland Security, certainly belies this absurd statement.

And regarding the complaints about outsourcing, if you had actually researched Obama's plans, you would see that he plans to end tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs, and provide increased tax credits for new jobs created IN THE UNITED STATES.
He is going to take aggressive action to solve the problem you are complaining about.
Why don't you people get the info from the actual source instead of from the detractors who are trying to discredit him?
Learning about LIBERALS from conservative propagandists trying to discredit us is only going to perpetuate stereotypes and misunderstandings.

Pointless wrote on Nov 25, 2008 4:51 PM:I've seldom seen such a dumb discussion as whether Obama is responsible for ups and/or downs in the market since his election. The market is responding big world-wide economic trends and forces. Obama is almost two months away from implementing policy #1. Years from now we can start drawing conclusions about Obama and the economy. In the meantime, we can certainly conclude that the policies of Bush & Co have been a total disaster. Worst administration in history. Anyone who supported them should show some integrity and humility and keep their mouths shut.

PMFJI wrote on Nov 25, 2008 5:25 PM:Ron[-] wrote on Nov 25, 2008 4:15 PM: Are you saying that you are wrong about the book and the dates? Yes or No?

Focal Point wrote on Nov 25, 2008 5:29 PM:Alf is a clown-show[-] wrote on Nov 25, 2008 3:23 PM:Buddy, Alf has a proven track record for being right on this blog on a variety of subjects. One of these subjects is Iraq. Your insults do nt change that fact. It is just an example of an immature personality who lacks any evidence to counter Alf's statements. If you had any, you would have made them. Put up or shut up, ideologue.

Yes, it is too much money to be spending on the future of Iraq when they have their own financial resources and when we should not have destroyed their country in the first place.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Nov 25, 2008 5:33 PM:To CARO[-] wrote on Nov 25, 2008 3:16 PM:
Here is anther Dumbo who wants to know when the President elect is going to do something? The President elect will do something when he is the President on JANUARY 20, 2009. Do you understand that the President elect does not have any power until he is the PRESIDENT. Get it/
Understand?

And esteban wrote on Nov 25, 2008 5:35 PM:Asking a question like "Is Iraq better off?" is, in itself, not a good idea. First, who are you or I or any American to decide this matter? Second, it is more than obvious that how Iraqis answer the question depends a lot on who you ask. Third, when you ask it and when you ask about is crucial. Do you mean better than under Saddam when he was unconstrained? Contained by the UN? Our ally against Iran? Do you mean at this moment, better off? Last year? In three years? The question is so vague and general that there cannot be a meaningful answer to it. Certainly we can say that the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who are dead would say, if they could, that it was better before they died. And many who say it is far worse now might end up saying it's better if and when the nation's infrastructure ever gets going again. In other words, esteban, sorry, but it's a dumb question, and beyond that, one that is not our right to ask.

tjefferson wrote on Nov 25, 2008 5:47 PM:Ron at 4:22 p.m. writes that he really didn't lie about Jefferson's quote, he just might have gotten his dates mixed up. Ron consistantly gets his dates "mixed up" and consistantly gets his facts "mixed up" and that makes him a consistant liar. Then he has the audacity to ask "does that change anything of what Jefferson actually did?" (Jeez, Ron, brush up on English grammar and syntax, please!) Yes, it does. I'm not required to refute the rest of Ron's absurd history of Jefferson vs. the Barbary pirates because he started his post with a great big lie. Ron was never a serious student of history. I suspect from his lact of communication skills he was never very much of a student for the obviously very limited time he was in school. Ron learned his history from wingnut blogs and that's why he continues to make a fool of himself.

Alf wrote on Nov 25, 2008 5:49 PM:Well, "Alf is a clown-show" at 3:23PM,
until the U.S. invaded Iraq, it was a SOVEREIGN NATION.
What we want for Iraq means NOTHING.
We do not decide what is best for a SOVEREIGN NATION and them do it by military force.
Russia does not decide what is best for the SOVEREIGN NATION called the United States and then impose it by military force.
Get that through your skull.
We committed an illegal and immoral war on a nation that did not threaten or attack us.
I ask you this-
How much better off would we be, as a nation, if we still had that $700 BILLION dollars, if we still had those 4,200 American Troops, if we had not killed thousands of Iraqi civilians, if we had not mucked things up in Iraq to have to repair them, if we had kept the fight against terrorists where they were, in Afghanistan?
The common man in the U.S. should ALWAYS be the FIRST concern of our government, not empire-building half way around the world.
But you are so wrapped up in changing other countries that you don't see what needs to be fixed right here, right now.
Get your priorities straight!
On any flight, the instructions are to have the adults put on their oxygen mask FIRST, because adults need to be alive in order to help children.
Our current melt-down shows just how able we are to help ourselves, doesn't it?
If we can't even keep ourselves afloat, how the hell do we have the gall to tell others how to keep afloat?
The clown-show is you, my less than worthy opponent.
Regards, Alf.

sdraoul wrote on Nov 25, 2008 6:11 PM:DD ignores the illegal rounding up and deportation of American citizens because they look ed Mexican that FDR and his minions did to cleanse California of Mexicans who might have been illegal.

That helped FDR claim that he lowered unemployment but normal business activity lowered unemployment as did the giant sucking sound of FDR's hacks hiring white men only and ignoring blacks.

Combining that with deportation of Mexican looking American citizens makes FDR look like less than the hero President DD wants us to believe.

As for dwelling on the past, some poster here claims this is 2008 so why spend the time on FDR -- ask DD he is the one who continues to revise history and to try to make FDR a hero to be emulated by Barack Obama.

Incomplete Pass wrote on Nov 25, 2008 6:19 PM:Ronnie Boy at 4:22 p.m. says of DDWiz that "He has to show you only part of the history."
Actually this is very incomplete.
Ronnie Boy: DDWiz repeatedly provided the complete history you are referring to.
And you know it.

Mans Inhumanity wrote on Nov 25, 2008 6:44 PM:Watching the National Geographic story of Blackbeard the Pirate reminded me that man’s inhumanity to man changes slowly, if at all.

From the Old Testament story of God-ordered mass murder and rape in Numbers 31, to pillage and rape throughout history (including the Crusades), mass unnecessary cruelty to others has been the norm, particularly in war.

Some in our society cannot differentiate between rape rooms or beheadings, and severe interrogations. They believe there is a moral equivalency between a beheading and waterboarding.

In the Blackbeard story as told by Blackbeard’s ship Captain after he was granted immunity, one disarmed and defeated man is stabbed to death as he lay prone on a deck and Blackbeards own wife (the daughter of a North Carolina merchant, married when Blackbeard went “straight” for a brief period) is given to the crew for their rape pleasure when she lightly insults him ashore. She is never heard from again.

There is a bit of Walter Mitty in each of us and we imagine ourselves able to complete passes like Colt McCoy, or pilot a jet like Chuck Yeager, or drive a Ferrari like Lewis Hamilton.
Sitting in Starbucks is not sufficient training for the blood lust and terror of battle, and this nation has been fortunately spared the widespread terror of battle on our shores for more than a century, but even at that there was a visceral reaction immediately after 9/11 that has palpably waned. (War is often worse for civilians who are not armed, armored or trained and are casual targets for both sides)

The highest fear factor most people face is their first driving test, but that is not nearly so high as a pilots test, and that is nothing compared to landing a plane, which is again nothing compared to racing a car or landing on a carrier at night, neither of which cannot even compare to close-in combat in any form.

Even though we have sanitized war to bombing from 14,000 feet, or launching intercontinental missiles, much of war still belongs to cold steel and hot lead. It is highly personal, the province of screams, incredible stench and slow death, and not susceptible to Geneva or Washington, and certainly not to Starbucks or Blogs by those who have no more terror on their mind above a rapidly cooling cappuccino.

Drinking a cappuccino at Starbucks while discussing how military people should behave in war is the worst sort of impoverished intellectualism.

to ALF wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:15 PM:Alf[-] wrote on Nov 25, 2008 5:49 PM:

Hello Alf, great job.

How do you have the patience to bother with these uneducated people.

~Tony

Karl wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:21 PM:Wanda @ 1:28 PM:

"Hey, Karl, at 12:59 PM, what's with the "ds611" at the end of your post?"

I'm messing with the Democrats. figure it out.

Peace

99tb2

Karl wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:37 PM:While Alf has his detractors here he is certianly the dean of DE's. I did a test run on my DE's this afternoon for Thursday and added some diced jalapenos, yee doggies, they had some kick and were delicioso. Thanks Alf.

Peace

gqgfk

Bill wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:59 PM:Twisted logic by twisted logic.

He fails to mention how many Al Qaeda Mujahads were killed in Iraq and it pales to the 4,000 we lost.

Thats why we won and have restored order and despite what twisted logic claims, there is no indication that anyone in Iraq is cozying up with Iran. In fact, that claim is silly beyond belief for those who know the middle east and its demographic breakdown.
Iran is a Shia state and Iraq is a Sunni dominated state with a partial Shia population in the south. The fighting between the Sunnis and Shiite will not stop, and if the new government cozies up with Iran, you can bet the Sunni populace wont tolerate it so that fear is absurd.

85% of the Muslim world is Sunni.

The fear has always been that the Muslim world would unite but thats a myth that will never be. The hate between these tribes is so strong that common enemies cant even unite them. Thats how Israel survives in the middle east. The Iraq war is indisputable evidence that the Sunnis will turn on Shiite militants even if the common enemy is America.

Thats precisely how we got Sunni militants to sell out Muqtada Al Sadr.

Some people shouldnt wade into subjects for which they have no expertise or knowledge.

I can talk circles around anyone in this room when it comes to middle east affairs.

A lot of misinformed people in this room.

To Bill S. wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:07 PM:To Bill S. regarding his letter to the editor.

Bill S.,
Put the Kool-aid down dude and step away from the Lester Maddux handbook of hatred and then maybe you can write a letter that is actually worthy of the ink used to print it.

Your ignorance is showing.

p.s. what is the origin of your surname?

jvc wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:15 PM:It makes no sense for president Bush
to stay in office when we have dire needs that only a new administration can address! Please allow Obama to take his oath of office now!

Bill wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:15 PM:Alf buddy

Iraq was a soveriegn nation that agreed to the terms of the UN resolution so its sort of like someone on probation who doesnt have the same rights as others. We already learned that the reason that Russia and China wouldnt go along with enforcement of the resolution was because they were doing busines with Hussein. Then, there is the Oil for Food scandal. The US was merely enforcing the resolution that allowed Saddam to stay in power.

The US military won the first Gulf War, and the UN allowed Saddam to stay in power by defining the mission under its terms.

Given that, it is only proper that we get what we paid for.

Hussein agreed to the terms of the resolution and violated them.

If the UN didnt want that, then they should have allowed Bush 41 to get him.

The last guy who threatened the US like Hussin did was bin laden and he followed through. I dont want my president ignoring threats that can ultimately one day become immenent.

The connection to 9/11 is irrelevant given this.

You dont wait until the threat is on your doorstep before acting.

Thats what we did with bin laden.

How did that turn out?

Think man...think!!!!

Focal Point wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:26 PM:Recently, a same-sex couple filed a complaint in a New Jersey court against a Methodist church demanding the church allow their civil union to take place at a Methodist-owned facility, despite the fact that this Methodist Church does not believe in gay civil unions.
This facility as you call it is used by both the owners, the Methodist Church and open to the public. You failed to state in your letter that the same sex couuple were not requesting to be married by a Methodist minister or in a Methodist Church. Furthermore, the couple was not Methodist. The reality is a pretty big difference in regards to your concern and inference.

Focal Point wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:32 PM:Julia Godinez: President-elect Obama will confer with the Congress when he becomes President on January 20,2009. He will confer with the new Congress. President-elect Obama is under no obligation to confer with the present lame duck Congress. President Obama will meet with the President of Mexico just as he will meet with the Canadian Prime Minister. I think it rather silly for you to expect Obama to take action when he has no power.

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:35 PM:"sdraoul's" continued misrepresentation
The post from "sdraoul" (6:11pm) becomes increasingly desperate, as he tries to accuse me of racism against Mexicans. He makes a blanket accusation against me, but does not state which of my post(s) he is referring to. What a disgusting liar.
The fact that I was discussing the ECONOMY and did not stop to itemize every single instance of injustice in American history does not justify an allegation of racism. I could just as well argue that his support for Republicans while simultaneously supporting the continued presence of ILLEGAL ALIENTS demonstrates a desire to keep them both illegal and in this country for the sole purpose of being able to be exploited by rich people (perhaps those living in Del Mar Heights) who want to exploit the cheap labor of those intentionally kept in desperate straits.
It is "sdraoul" who is both changing the subject and extrpolating conclusions for the sole purpose of trying to imply slanderous allegations against others on subjects where he is actually far more suspect.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Focal Point wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:36 PM:To CARO[-] wrote on Nov 25, 2008 3:16 PM:
BTW, it is a Republican President and his administration who is requesting all the bail outs at the present time. Did you miss that fact?

Gotta Wonder wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:38 PM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Nov 25, 2008 6:11 PM:
Gee, kinda makes me wonder why the war government was recruiting all those Mexican workers.

To To To Caro and DD wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:43 PM:Interesting.

I hope you see the problem – each of you supports or opposes some tenet of generalized “liberalism.” In effect, you are “Cafeteria Liberals.”

Well on these very pages under my usual name (Reardon), I am accused to simply parroting Rush and Hannity, without regard to my actual position on any particular issue.

It may come as some surprise to some newbies that I “support medicinal marijuana, the right to love whomever you choose, reproductive rights, stem cell research, and I do not favor religion(s). Yet I am lumped in with many with whom I claim only a casual and fleeting association because of support of an issue with which we agree.

It might do all of us well to stop the name calling and simply address the issues.

There are rational liberals, and rational conservatives who are simply looking for a solution.

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:54 PM:Revised and resubmitted

"sdraoul's" continued misrepresentation
The post from "sdraoul" (6:11pm) becomes increasingly desperate, as he tries to accuse me of racism against Mexicans. He makes a blanket accusation against me, but does not state which of my post(s) he is referring to. What a disgusting liar.
The fact that I was discussing the ECONOMY and did not stop to itemize every single instance of injustice in American history does not justify an allegation of racism. I could just as well argue that a hypothetical person who was born in Mexico but became a "naturalized" American citizen through having an insider stepfather pulling strings, who then supports the anti-Mexican Republicans while simultaneously supporting the continued presence of ILLEGAL ALIENTS, demonstrates a desire to keep them both illegal and in this country for the sole purpose of being able to be exploited by rich people (perhaps those living in Del Mar Heights) who want to exploit the cheap labor of those intentionally kept in desperate straits.

However, "sdraoul" is caught in his malicious, slanderous LIE, when he accuses me of IGNORING the racist aspects of FDR's administration. My post today at 1:40pm, in response to an earlier one of "sdraoul's," did explicitly condemn the racist aspects of FDR's administration on a blanket basis, which would by inclusion include the Mexicans "sdraoul" is so singularly obsessed with. So first, "sdraoul" is wrong - even though it was not germane to my main point, I actually did acknowledge and condemn all racist acts of FDR, and second, he shows his malicious desire, borne of his frustration at repeated failure, in his determination to accuse me of racism that is far more easily attached to himself.

It is "sdraoul" who is both changing the subject and extrpolating conclusions for the sole purpose of trying to imply slanderous allegations against others on subjects where he is actually far more suspect.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

John wrote on Nov 25, 2008 9:00 PM:In regards to David Teten's letter - David, Why don't you organize your walk out of "every gay male and lesbian in the public and private work force". I would be interested to see just what affect it would really have. If you are really as convicted to your belief(s) as you assert, why don't you, individually make a statement and walk out for a day or two. Stand on the corner all by yourself with your sign proclaiming your message.

sdraoul wrote on Nov 25, 2008 9:19 PM:In 5000 Iraqis never voted in a free democratic election until we conducted one for them.

Alf's claim that Saddam's Iraq was a sovereign nation is good only as far as a ten year old can reason. Being sovereign and free are two different things.

Iraq is no a free and sovereign nation, something it has never been in 5000 years. Thanks to GWB, I might add.

Alf wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:43 AM:Well, "Karl" at 7:21PM,
let's see, 5 characters.
What on every page here has an ever-changing 5 character spot?
I dunno.
Regards, Alf. baef1

Alf wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:45 AM:Muchas gracias "Karl" at 7:37PM.
Regards, Alf.
ygski

Alf wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:59 AM:Well, "Focal Point" at 8:26PM,
you mentioned the critical FACTS, the whole truth that others failed to mention.
You see, they rely on people being lazy and accepting what is presented to them as the whole truth. "Noah" at 4:10AM on the 25th is a prime example. GWB and his LIES HE COMMITTED WHEN HE SPOKE and HIS LIES BY WHAT HE OMITTED WHEN HE SPOKE are another.
Regards, Alf.

Pathetic ALF wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:55 AM:What kind of pathetic, no-life-having loser is posting on the local newspaper blog-o-sphere at 1:59 in the AM???

Mr. Alf, you really need to move out of your mom's basement, turn off the Star Trek re-runs, take the tin-foil off your head and get a girlfriend or something.

This is not healthy for you (can anyone say "unabomber-profile?")

Alf wrote on Nov 26, 2008 9:43 AM:Sorry to disappoint you, "Pathetic ALF" at 8:55AM,
I live in the house I built and get up when my body tells me to, much to the consternation of Mrs. Alf.
If insults are all you have to offer,
tis you who need to get a life, an education and some manners.
Regards, Alf.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 26, 2008 10:33 AM:The following is taken directly from a recent Presidental State of the Union address. Can you identify the President that uttered these words to the whole country? Don't cheat by scrolling down to the bottom!

"Together, we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them.

Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire Gulf War. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission.

I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein: You cannot defy the will of the world. And when I say to him: You have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.

Last year, the Senate ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention to protect our soldiers and citizens from poison gas. Now we must act to prevent the use of disease as a weapon of war and terror. The Biological Weapons Convention has been in effect for 23 years now. The rules are good, but the enforcement is weak. We must strengthen it with a new international inspection system to detect and deter cheating."


That was Bill Clinton in his 1998 State of the Union address.

So, blame it all on Bush. Go ahead and be blindly partisan. Meanwhile I will support my constitution and look beyond partisan bashing in order to ensure this country has a future.

Focal Point wrote on Nov 26, 2008 11:26 AM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Nov 25, 2008 9:19 PM:
The modern Iraqi state with defined borders is less than 100 years old.

Nuff Said wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:20 PM:MarineGunner[-] wrote on Nov 26, 2008 10:33 AM: The United Nations inspectors did not find weapons of mass destruction.
Nuff Said

I Like Alf wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:37 PM:I Like Alf. Both the tv show and the Alf that writes on the blogs.

I think Alf does a nice job of expressing himself and I think he is pretty well-mannered about it too.

I like Alf and I'm glad he participates in these forums - it helps to balance the situation.

Thanks Alf - I don't know you - but, I do like your style. :-)

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:42 PM:To: Nuff Said
[-] wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:20 PM:

Errrm... O.K.
I never said they did.
I am not the one that made that speech.

What is your point? Oh wait, you didn't have one.

Nuff Said wrote on Nov 26, 2008 2:14 PM:MarineGunner[-] wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:42 PM: The simple direct and definitive point is that there were no weapons of mass destruction found prior to or after the invasion of Iraq. Nuff Said.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 26, 2008 2:39 PM:to: Nuff Said
[-] wrote on Nov 26, 2008 2:14 PM:

No kidding. I am glad you are able to express that so thoroughly.
Again, "I" never said they did find any WMD in Iraq.

Have you ever seen me post that I supported the invasion of Iraq?

No, I don't think you have.

Are you making an assumption that I did support it based on the name I use?

If so, that is a big mistake, Didn't you ever learn not make assumptions about people? You don't know whether I am active duty or retired. You have no idea what time frame my service includes. You know nothing about my service other than the fact I am a Marine. So...again: What is your point?

I will clarify what the point was of "my" post @ 10:33 AM. The point you obviously missed cuz it "whooshed" right over your head: We cannot just blame Bush for this whole thing and that it goes deeper than partisanship.

Do you get it now? Goood

Nuff Said wrote on Nov 26, 2008 6:46 PM:MarineGunner[-] wrote on Nov 26, 2008 2:39 PM: Hey jarhead. I never said you supported the war in Iraq. I never stated that you said that their were WMD in Iraq. What I did say is that no WMD were found in Iraq. Read it again,and again. Talk about assumptions. Quit acting like a know nothing boot!

Nuff Said wrote on Nov 26, 2008 6:50 PM:MarineGunner[-] wrote on Nov 26, 2008 2:39 PM: fu from Nuff Said. I understood all your posts. I have made no inference about your service, rate, time in grade or place of service. Got a chip on your soldier? Tell me where I did? Your post did not go over me head. Again, all I said is that the No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. You extrapolate into obvious insanity from that point. LOL.

Nuff Said wrote on Nov 26, 2008 6:54 PM:MARINE GUNNER: My point is what I said in my first post. No WMD found in Iraq.
It was stated again in my post two. Now hit the grinder for some close order to remind you that all I said was that no
WMD found Iraq. That is precisly all that Nuff Said said. He did not say anything about Clinton. He did not say anything about you and the Iraqi War. I did not say anything personal about you. I did not make any assumptions about you. That is all in your jarhead.
Your problem Gunny. No longer mine.

Jumping Jack Feller wrote on Nov 26, 2008 11:37 PM:I assume Jack is taking acting class,
He's giving a repeat performance of old hash and trying to appear fresh and new....going to get his second bite of the apple and his piece of the economy pie!!!
What does Jack really do ????