Ron wrote on Jun 27, 2007 4:36 AM:Who is greedier, Big Oil, Government, or the people who use the oil? If you check the profit margins of Big Oil over the last 30 years, what you'll find is about a 10% return on investment. Funny, how that little piece of information never got mentioned in the press, only the size of the profit. As any very large multi-national, they cover the world, and most of the profit did not come from the United States consumer. but, again, that piece of information was never heard in the press. If you want to be successful financially, you must invest, as many of us do in our 401K's, in the market process. That's why for me, every time I fill up, I can hear the cash register ringing. Savy?

Vista Granny wrote on Jun 27, 2007 7:55 AM:Kenneth Stahl is the firt person I ever heard refer to the San Diego Union as liberal.

Alf wrote on Jun 27, 2007 8:07 AM:This is carried over from yesterday with hopes of more dialog today - To all responders, THANK YOU! "Realist", my right to complain is the same as your right to say that I have no right to complain thanks to the First Amendment. Sir or madam, once I have cast my vote, I must accept the results and wait until next time. "to Alf", we left Vietnam with far fewer that were "shot in the back as we left" than you will, or care to, admit. Either we leave and accept that there will be a fast slaughter of X many people or we stay and accept that there will still be a slaughter of X times 2 plus Y number per day of our extended stay, the only differences being the speed with which it happens and the fact that the longer we stay in Iraq, the more people will be slaughtered. "Dang", I equated nothing, except the people. It is the people who will declare that illegals are ruining our nation, on the one hand, that are the very same people who claim that human contribution to Global Warming does not exist. EITHER our resources are being taxed by illegals or they are not. If the resources are being stressed by illegals, then to claim that humankind, with their own plus their machines that are OVER TWICE what Earth can sustain are not stressing the planet is not logical, rational or reasonable thinking. To play up one problem, while down-playing the other is the sign of a sick, irrational mind, one that picks and chooses which reality to inhabit depending on the circumstances. Most of all, to those that responded, I THANK YOU! Discussion helps, even if we do not agree. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jun 27, 2007 8:49 AM:This is too important for just yesterday, SO - Well, "Realist" and "to Alf", I have found the proper analogy to our presence in Iraq. A friend of mine is currently in the Coronary Intensive Care Unit and is going to die. Modern medicine can prolong his physical life for quite some time via machines, while he is in the CICU at the expense of another 10 to 15 THOUSAND dollars PER DAY and yet he will die very soon if he leaves. He can not live outside the CICU. This is all too very real. He has a choice as too whether to prolong his life, with no hope of getting out of CICU or to "pull the plug". What happens when he dies? EVERYTHING is the same if he dies today or tomorrow EXCEPT that there is another 10 to 15K added to the bill if he dies tomorrow and another 10 to 15 thousand the next day, etc. If we leave Iraq today, X many people will die, if we leave tomorrow X plus 10 thousand will die, if we leave the day after tomorrow X plus 30 thousand will die. The piper WILL BE PAID, the only question is, HOW MUCH and BY WHO? Does that make sense? A sad Libertarian, Alf.

FOCAL POINT wrote on Jun 27, 2007 9:08 AM:It is later than you think: Jack, Jack, Jack. The reason why the Congress has never heard of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group is that they are private associations with no political power. If they had an army, I might listen to them for the sake of national defense. But, they don't. In the year 2010, you still be using the dollar as currency. The national borders will be the same, there but disrespected and the US government will still be there as well. The real question is will be still in Iraq?

Ron wrote on Jun 27, 2007 9:13 AM:In my mind, it take two to tango, as the old saying goes... but in this case, three. The Mira Costa faculty does share in blame. Ever heard of policing your own? "Alleen Texeira, the horticulture professor; Texeira and a fertilizer salesman illegally used college land, water and labor for eight years to grow and sell palm trees for personal profit; trustees put Texeira on paid leave; Those disciplinary actions prompted an uproar from professors and other employees at the college, which was followed in late November by a landslide "no confidence" vote by full-time faculty members against college President Victoria Munoz Richart. Such votes carry no legal weight, and trustees have declined to discipline or dismiss Richart in response to the vote; college officials would not release any details about the early retirement agreement forged with Texeira, except that it would become effective today. Texeira, whose annual salary is approximately $100,000, was initially hired by the college in 1995." Pretty sweet deal, you get caught, and still get your retirement. Sweet! Sounds like a Duke Cunningham type of deal.

How to spend it? wrote on Jun 27, 2007 9:38 AM:All those who want to get tough on immigration enforcement seem to think that all their wishes are free. Think about the costs of increasing enforcement, adding walls, imprisoning violators, etc. But, you'll say, it's worth it because at least this way, those "illegals" won't be GETTING anything for our tax money. The same money spent on punishing them is a good deal.

ACE wrote on Jun 27, 2007 9:39 AM:Fred Thompson hasn't even formally declared his candidacy for president, and already letter writer Michael Gash is throwing out the preemptive strikes. That tells me Democrats and liberals feel Thompson is a serious threat to win the general election. And, Mike, how much has really changed in Washington since Republicans were booted? In most ways, it has only gotten worse. Insiders? What do you call Hillary and Obama?

FOCAL POINT wrote on Jun 27, 2007 9:57 AM:Hard lesson: Do you really think that the majority of the union workers in the grocery markets are home owners? Their hourly wage would hardly generate an income to pay the mortgage on a home in San Diego County.

FOCAL POINT wrote on Jun 27, 2007 10:01 AM:Concerned-1 You write as if the Grocery union was like the Teamsters of the 1950's. There are no "union bosses." The leaders and managers of the Grocery Union are democratically elected and paid per the agreement approved by the membership.

Laughing at John wrote on Jun 27, 2007 10:04 AM:I see the NCT felt the need to correct his mangling of the language - "a loose,loose" situation to be sure.

Bob wrote on Jun 27, 2007 10:09 AM:Ron. How did the Bush family become gazzillionaires with the 10% return on investment. Ask your Rockerfeller buddies what they don't tell the public. Yah Ron--the rest of the story.

GFN wrote on Jun 27, 2007 10:24 AM:Isn't the opportunity to pay a toll for the right to use a HOV lane, kind of a free pass through the congestion for the wealthy? Just an observation; I'm not bitter at the rich, as I am one of them, but it does seem a bit unfair to those who can't afford it.

GFN wrote on Jun 27, 2007 10:26 AM:Only because I've seen this two or three times before...it's savvy.

GFN wrote on Jun 27, 2007 10:38 AM:Jack Fulton is right on; it is later then we think and the silence about the merge of the US, Canada, and Mexico is disturbing. It is my opinion that a US, Mexico, Canada coalition, sort of a copy of the European Common Market is the number one priority of our leaders. This is the main reason GWB does not allow the enforcement of our immigration laws. When I say "our leaders", I do not mean the government of the United States, I mean a coalition of all three of the governments involved, corporate interests (which may have even more influence than any of the three governments), and organized crime (this may seem a reach, but drugs are so lucrative, pervasive, and ingrained in our societies that the powerful drug dealers, who corrupt government and have strong militias cannot be ignored). Yes, US jobs will go to Mexico, but that will actually help with the illegal immigration problem in the United States. It is the American corporations that will thrive as they will invade Mexico faster, and with more intensity than Sherman through Atlanta in our Civil War. You can bet there will be fast food outlets, Wal-Marts, malls, high-rise condos, four lane freeways, and cookie-cutter homes on tiny lots, throughout the whole of Mexico, probably within thirty years. Mexican natives will be moved from the more desirable locations onto pseudo reservations, just like the Native Americans were during the last three centuries. Of course gambling will be introduced, just to help the poor Mexicans, and wealthy Americans will be allowed to buy property along the coastlines, something they are restricted from doing now, and the Mexican “Gold Rush” will be on. This is a scenario and pattern that the wealthy use to become wealthier; remember if you don’t grow-you die, and I know they are licking their chops to begin the process. Notice one thing; I am not judging the paradigm, just pointing out what I believe is going on behind the scenes. The United States, as we know it, will be sacrificed for the generation of an incredible stream of revenues and profits, and I don’t believe there is a damn thing we can do about it. Yes, some of this is a repeat; so where are your comments?

to Alf wrote on Jun 27, 2007 11:34 AM:For the umpteenth time, no one is saying that global warming does not exist. In fact, the temp has gone up a whopping 1 degree over the last century. We skeptics only question how much humans contribute to it, and further, sincerely question whether man can do anything about it anyway. And by the way, perhaps you didn't get the memo. The term is no longer "global warming". The term has been altered to "climate change". That way, whenever a certain part of the Earth is not the "correct" temperature, liberals can always tell us this is supposed evidence of climate change that of course man is responsible for. You see, Alf, for years liberals warned those less enlightened of us about the dangers of global warming, without much evidence, so they just changed tactics -- no longer are people to be terrified of the Earth's temperature rising, but its falling as well! It's the ultimate liberal "heads-I-win-tails-you-lose" argument. Summer hot? Climate change! Winter cold? Climate change! Feeling manipulated yet, Alf?

The Bilderberg Group wrote on Jun 27, 2007 12:26 PM:I beg to differ. This group is VERY connected politically as its members are heads of state all over the world, including Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, the architects of the Iraq War.

OBSERVATION wrote on Jun 27, 2007 12:28 PM:ACE wrote on Jun 27, 2007 9:39 AM: You assume that Michael Gash is a liberal or a Democrat due to his opinion of Fred Thompson. He does not identify himself as a liberal or a Democrat. I concur with his opinion. I am not a Democrat or a liberal but an independent centrist. Your opinion is predicated upon assumption and not a fact in evidence.

Concerned-1 wrote on Jun 27, 2007 12:43 PM:To Focal Point at 10:01 regarding union leadership: I stand corrected. Maybe the bosses don't skim the membership dues, I don't care. I just think unions are bad for business and the people who are a part of them are being fleeced. And, my comment about UAW? It stands.

to GFN wrote on Jun 27, 2007 12:44 PM:Good point about the HOV lanes. Maybe with the rich leaving the regular lanes, the poor will get less traffic too. But the image of "these fast new lanes for those with dough, these congested lanes for the riff raff" isn't a pleasant one. Even though this is how it is all over our society, it's usually behind closed doors. On the freeways, the two groups can flip each other off all day.

Concerned-1 wrote on Jun 27, 2007 12:47 PM:Again Global Warming, errr Climate Change, rears its ugly head. Because we and our government officials have been duped by corn farmers, the price for a number of staples is going up. Milk and cheese are just the beginning. And all for ethanol? What a joke! Global warming will definitely play a negative role in our future, but actual warming will have little to do with it.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 27, 2007 12:49 PM:to Alf wrote on Jun 27, 2007 11:34 AM: My. my, my. Listen to your scenario you think that the term liberal is interchangeable with bogyman. Do you tell scary bedtime stories to your children or grandchildren with the admonishment that the be careful or the liberal with get you. There are millions of Americans concerned about global warming and climate change regardless of political party or life philosophy. If you gonna pick on Alf, get it right.

FOCAL POINT wrote on Jun 27, 2007 12:52 PM:The Bilderberg Group wrote on Jun 27, 2007 12:26 PM: Really! That information alone would change my mind. Are they part of the Tri Lateral Commission as well?

FOCAL POINT wrote on Jun 27, 2007 12:54 PM:Concerned-1 wrote on Jun 27, 2007 12:43 PM: Thanks for the clarification. The Business/Union conflict is hundreds of years old. You stand by your comments and I will stand by mine.

To Shirley Cameron wrote on Jun 27, 2007 12:57 PM:I completely agree with you! The 4-H Club is an absolutely hideous program! The kids are NOT being taught to properly take care of a pet. You don't love, cherish and care for a pet to then have it tortured and slaughtered. It's disgusting! If the 4-H club continues, as it most likely will, then have the kids slaughter their own pets. Then let's see how long the 4-H club will continue and be popular. The kids are being taught to just turn their heads when their pet confronts its ugly end of life. What an education. This program should be outlawed!

Wrong Again Ron wrote on Jun 27, 2007 1:35 PM:Even utilizing your 10% profit figure for big oil, you're talking of hundreds of billions of dollars, so 10% is $tens of billions. A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon it adds up to real money. More importantly, you are conveniently leaving out of the equation, because the media will never mention it, that trillions of US taxpayer dollars have gone into keeping the oil flowing these last severeal decades. If that were billed to the oil companies they'd be losing money hand-over-fist, making it the least profitable industry imaginable. If they passed the cost on to you Ron, you'd be paying $25/gallon at the pump. How do you like that return on your investment?

Ethanol not a panacea wrote on Jun 27, 2007 1:45 PM:No, corn production and making it into fuel is not the answer. It requires tons of energy to produce and does not burn clean as other fuels do. Besides, people are starting to go hungry in other countries because the price of corn has skyrocketed due to lack of it for food supply- watch for milk and other dairies increases as well, then the cost of meat, etc. This is NOT the answer.

to Alf wrote on Jun 27, 2007 1:45 PM:It's extraordinary that some people think that Global Warming is a liberal issue and that liberals like to frighten people. All we've heard for six years from this administration and conservatives is fear! You also have a classic misunderstanding of climate systems. You believe because you have a cold winter it means that global warming isn't happening or it isn't serious. It isn't a linear system. If Arctic ice melts and flows South, suppressing the Gulf Stream, then Europe will have colder winters for a time to come, until enough ice has melted for the flow to reverse. Then we may experience super-heating. And blaming higher food prices on global warming fears--tisk, tisk, you're watching Fox News again. Have you not noticed that the price of gasoline has TRIPPLED under the Cheney presidency? In case you haven't figures it out, that will increase the price of everything. But have no fear for the Cheney administration has seen to it that food and fuel prices are no longer counted in the consumer price index, so you have almost no inflation at all--Mission Accomplished, as they say!

I'm getting dizzy wrote on Jun 27, 2007 1:52 PM:Generally speaking, conservatives believe that what's good for business is good for America. They usually oppose unions, government regulation, etc. If conservatism ruled without pushback from liberals, we'd be in the bad old days of severe worker exploitation. Now, interestingly, the immigration issue puts many conservative supporters in the shoes of those workers, exploited for the sake of business. It's fascinating to watch so many of them become "liberals" on this issue, screaming about how the Bush/McCain/Kennedy junta is ripping them off.

Global Warmer wrote on Jun 27, 2007 1:53 PM:If we don't fight Global Warming on it's own turf we'll be fighting it here in our streets. I hope we don't cut and run in the fight against climate change.

to focal point wrote on Jun 27, 2007 2:01 PM:It's not that the liberal will "get us" physically - as would the traditional bogeyman. That is easily remedied by simply opening my gun cabinet. Something much more sinister: the liberal comes for our wallets and our liberties. And that is something to warn children & grandchildren about. The global warming - errr climate change - scare is a liberal baby. You say "regardless of political party or life philosoply". I say, my eye. Global Warming is a liberal pet project through and through. How many conservatives do you see falling for this Warming racket? It's not about changing the planet. It's about government control. Luckily, very reputable climatologists with no ties to the oil industry are finally coming out saying what a sham the whole thing really is.

Really Good News wrote on Jun 27, 2007 2:03 PM:A recent poll shows that Americas youth are becoming more liberal, probably as a reaction to the disaster that is the Bush Administration and the obnoxiousness of the religious right. They favor and open border policy, homosexual marriage and universal healthcare. Looks like once the grumpy old "I've got mine to heck with everyone else" people on this blog are dead and gone the US will be in good, caring hands. Really good news.

Ron wrote on Jun 27, 2007 2:19 PM:Bob @10:09 AM, Do the math my friend. The MORE stock you own, the MORE you make. And, correct me if I'm wrong here, but... didn't the Bush's actually own oil wells? Drilling equipment? Companies that did this work? Duh.. Not to mention, as most politicians can do, and do do... they help themselves while in office. Like say, Harry Reid, earmarked a road a bridge or something like that near a piece of dust bowl land, and Wa-La.... Strip Mall! Brings up the selling price at taxpayer expense. And then you have Nancy Pelosi... and her rental property and the earmark to "upgrade" the wharf areas... you know... for the tourists who will rent her property. Or you can do the old Di-Fi.. Diane Feinstein and through her term on the MILCON sub-committee helped direct military contracts to her hubby. That's how it's done. Any wonder why a lot of these guys go into office with nothing, and leave rich? And then, there's the straight out bribery, like "Cold-Cash" Jefferson. but I digress.

To Really Good News wrote on Jun 27, 2007 2:24 PM:Thanks for passing it on! That IS good news. I work with and know many young adults/late teens and most of them are just fine with gay rights and the rest...it's just not a big deal to them at all. This is a generation that included unprecedented numbers from single-parent or blended families. We can't tell them anything about the sanctity of marriage that they haven't seen first-hand. That institution was severely wounded by consumerist capitalism, so that the old one-earner middle class evaporated in the "need" for stuff and the rejection of the burden of the extended family. That and the realization that women are humans. It wasn't the nation slipping into immorality. Rather it was the nation being America more fully as promised: money, acquisition, equality, Yankee individualism. When the WWII generation had the help from the government to attain full middle class standing, they wanted it all, and the current state of marriage is the result. The greatest generation is now in nursing homes while their offspring are off acquiring iPhones and Hummers.

Really Stale News wrote on Jun 27, 2007 2:37 PM:America's youth are generally liberal? What a newsflash. You mean our impressionable youngsters in their pre-teen, teen years, and college years have a tendency to think like anarchists and socialists? Well I'll be darned. Reminds me of an old saying: If you're a liberal in your 20's, you're normal; If you're a liberal in your 30's, you're in denial; if you're still a liberal in your 40's, you're a moron.

OBSERVATION wrote on Jun 27, 2007 2:40 PM:Really Good News wrote on Jun 27, 2007 2:03 PM:Thing about blogs is that anybody can say anything. You did not offer one shred of evidence or reference. So, we will take it as just an opinion. The good news is that it is just an opinion.

To "Really Good News" wrote on Jun 27, 2007 2:41 PM:More news for you... Polls will reflect whatever you want them to. Oh, and by the way, the phrase "A recent poll shows" is a bit vague, don't you think?

also to Shirley Cameron wrote on Jun 27, 2007 2:49 PM:Thanks very much for that letter today. The quote is especially important and applies as much to foreign policy as it does to digestive policy. When our military people's real suffering and even death are hidden from our view, how easy it is to "support the war" and such. How easy to think of it in terms of strategy or game moves, rather than as human pain and suffering. I know there are veterans of combat who find the war supporters obscene. Since I am not a veteran, I would love to hear from them how troops learn to take their suffering and their experiences and transform these, somehow, into their opposites. How does military training get people to DO that?

To FOCAL POINT wrote on Jun 27, 2007 2:55 PM:Well, yes. Chaney is a member of the Trilateral Commission as well as the Bilderberg Group. Also Trilateral are Bill Clinton and Dianne Feinstein. You can google the members of both groups. Very politically connected.

to to focal point at 2:01 wrote on Jun 27, 2007 3:00 PM:our wallets and our liberties indeed. So what's your opinion of the President's domestic spying program? Warrantless. Already shown to have been severely abused by intelligence agencies. I cannot think of a more straightforward, transparent, unarguable violation of our Constitutionally guaranteed right to be free of unreasonable searches. Our wallets? Have you seen the budget outlay for Iraq? Not just the military expenditures but all the associated monies from other sources. To reconstruction. To private contractors. You've been duped by the right into thinking that this is about liberals...those people pointing to the hated liberals have one hand in your pocket and are also taking your rights away while you're occupied elsewhere...and I think you may not even realize it! (Just like that gun cabinet you are so proud of, which you swear is your right to protect you from the government...you're ready to grab the rifle and defend that very government! You've really been had, I'm sorry to say.)

I have to correct myself wrote on Jun 27, 2007 3:03 PM:It is Donald Rumsfeld, not Dick Cheney who is a member of the Bilderberg Group, along with Wolfowitz and Bill Clinton. Actually, both the Tri Lateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group have quite a distinguished membership, you should really see for yourself.

Polls or Otherwise wrote on Jun 27, 2007 3:05 PM:Really Good News is correct. Historically it has always been the young people who are open to change and the old people resistant. As the old people die off, the changes are able to take place. Thanks for the reminder, Really Good News!

The Reason Why We Won't Be Able To Impeach Chaney and Bush wrote on Jun 27, 2007 3:08 PM:Not to sound paranoid, but the Congress members and the Administration are very closely connected on many levels that we don't see, and Congress will NOT open the can of worms that will expose their own complicity. We are overdue for a very big political house cleaning and no one is going to do it for us.

FOCAL POINT wrote on Jun 27, 2007 3:19 PM:to focal point wrote on Jun 27, 2007 2:01 PM: Not so. Again, the majority of the American people are neither liberals or conservatives. Neither are they Democrats or Republicans except at the time of elections when they chose national leaders. The majority of us are centrists and would prefer to be independent if it were not for the primary rules (various from state to state). In my opinion, the worst kind of political being is an fanatic ideologue regardless of party affiliation or philosophical outlook. Sure there are liberals advocating action on perceived global warming. That does not make it a liberal thing. The bottom line is that all I read is conservatives blaming everything and anything on liberals as if it were a catch all net. The problems of this planet, the geo political world and our country are not that simplistic.

FOCAL POINT wrote on Jun 27, 2007 3:21 PM:I have to correct myself wrote on Jun 27, 2007 3:03 PM: Thank you again. I'll have fun tonight researching. Feels just like the university again.

Sorry to Burst.... wrote on Jun 27, 2007 3:23 PM:your bubble, "polls or otherwise", but as you gleefully watch all "the old people die off" and welcome your beloved leftist change, you must remember that people tend to gravitate to the right as they age. This is because they begin to see how the world really is - not as they wish it to be. They only way you'll be able to incuce the far left change that you advocate is to hope that middle age and pre-middle age folks begin to "die off" in massive numbers. Perhaps then you would have a chance.

to 3:00pm wrote on Jun 27, 2007 3:37 PM:My opinion of the domestic spying program - which is no longer used - is the same as most Americans: I supported it. It never infringed on my liberties one iota, and a vast majority of Americans agreed. You never did give me the list of high profile conservatives or conservative leaders who also feel global warming, err, climate change is of utmost concern. Remember, you said climate change had nothing whatsoever to do with ideology. All you did was change the subject.

To Sorry to Burst wrote on Jun 27, 2007 3:37 PM:It has nothing to do with my beloved leftist change, unless your definition of all change is leftist. Change happens without political influence. Older people tend to be "conservative" because they like things the way they are. Young people tend to be "liberal" because they are open to change. It has nothing to do with you or me, it is the way of human beings. Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but change will happen whether you like it or not.

Polls wrote on Jun 27, 2007 3:38 PM:I think that what that poll found was that current young people have moved toward the left compared to the same age people of recent years. So it's not about "the young are liberal, blah blah blah" -- it's that these young people are more liberal than their same-age predecessors. That is really good news.

To to 3:00 pm wrote on Jun 27, 2007 3:49 PM:You are incorrect on both counts. The President is still spying on Americans and the vast majority of Americans were and still are against it. Glad you feel comfortable though, more power to you.

To To Alf wrote on Jun 27, 2007 3:54 PM:The 1:45pm posting to Alf, was naturally meant for you. Sorry Alf

Conservative Leaders wrote on Jun 27, 2007 3:56 PM:Are Evangelical Leaders conservative enough for you? "Richard Cizik, Washington spokesman of the National Association of Evangelicals, urges action based on the biblical demand for "creation care." Rev. Cizik had his own change of heart after listening to an Evangelical scientist from Oxford University lay out the scientific consensus. "We pray everyone will see 'The Great Warming,' (a Canadian documentary on Global Warming) " says the Rev. Paul de Vries, president of New York Divinity School, who prepared the materials. "Science has given us an extraordinary wake-up call, but scriptural teaching gives us direction to be responsible for God's world."

Bob wrote on Jun 27, 2007 3:57 PM:Well, I did the math Ron. If I'm a politician, at 1% return on investment, I could become a gazzillionare with oil. Amazing.

to Really Stale News wrote on Jun 27, 2007 4:02 PM:here's another old saying, "If you're a conservative in your 20's you're a moron. If you're a conservative in your 30's you're a moron. If you're a conservative in your 40's you're a moron."

to to focal point 2:01pm wrote on Jun 27, 2007 4:04 PM:It's not the liberals who shreded the Constitution. It was liberals who demanded the "Bill of Rights" be incorporated into the great document. Today, thanks to your favorite politicians, you have no rights. All your left with is a gun cabinet.

3:00 wrote on Jun 27, 2007 4:13 PM:I don't have much interest in the global warming situation. I read your post and you seemed to be concerned about your wallet and your liberties. As I said at 3, your rights were infringed upon (or at least people like you, you know, Americans living under the Constitution) and, sure enough, you still deny it. Have you seen the recent release of what the CIA was doing in the 70's? Probably you were or would've been for all that too, and the heck with the law. Majorities being "for" the program are exactly the point: the Bill of Rights is explicit protection of Americans from the majority.

Jules wrote on Jun 27, 2007 4:53 PM:Love the posts from focal point, some new breath from the stale old fogies. Oh and to Sorry to burst, no one "gleefully" wants to watch the old people die off, (where do you people get this rubbish) but we do need change, tolerance and empathy, just because one ages those attributes should not. As far as the younger generation is concerned they also would like a shot at life just as you old people did. They would like clean air, water, food and decent health care so therefore they are more liberal can you blame them? Sometimes a healthy happy life means more to some of us than seeing how much money we can take to our graves.

Alf wrote on Jun 27, 2007 4:56 PM:The news, to some, is that the young liberal of today becomes the middle-age centrist who becomes the "old conservative". It does not even take that long for most because they soon realize that their wallets are lighter due to "liberal" entitlements. They also see that the far right is also after their money, just for different reasons. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jun 27, 2007 5:06 PM:Whatever you call it, be it "domestic spying" or "warrantless searches", the fact is that the government is violating the Constitution and violating the Constitutional rights of American Citizens. To say that one's liberties are not compromised and violated by such action is insane. "First they came for.....". Do you want the incremental destruction of your rights as a Citizen of the United States? Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Thanks Sorry to Burst wrote on Jun 27, 2007 5:09 PM:you pretty much nailed the difference between liberals and conservatives-conservatives see the world as it is and liberals see it as they wish it to be. As a man thinketh, as they say. So I guess you can thank liberals since beginning of time for changing the world from how it was to a place that they thought could be better. Great argument genius.

to Alf wrote on Jun 27, 2007 5:18 PM:Those so called "liberal entitlements" have never cost you more in the long run.

Alf wrote on Jun 27, 2007 5:20 PM:I like your 4:53pm post, "Jules", although it would be nice to have the money that I WORKED FOR AND EARNED so that I can enjoy what it can do. I have no desire to "take it with me", just a desire to use what I WORKED FOR AND EARNED the way I want. I realize that the concept of working and actually earning their own money is foreign to some. By the way, when I first started WORKING the minimum wage was $1.65 per hour. Still an unashamed Libertarian, Alf.

to 4:04pm wrote on Jun 27, 2007 5:59 PM:Liberals demanded the Bill of Rights? You mean like the 2nd amendment? That amendment that allows our right to keep and bear arms? My, how those liberals would be scolding you today.

Bob2 wrote on Jun 27, 2007 6:01 PM:Well Bob, I did the math. If I'm a politician, at 1% return on investment, I could become a gazzillionare with taxes. Amazing. "

History wrote on Jun 27, 2007 6:01 PM:So Congress has issued subpoenas to the White House, Cheney, etc. I wonder what the reply will be: ok, I'll talk but only if no recordings or transcripts and if no one but me is in the room. I wonder if the history books of the future will refer to this era as that Cheney/Rove or the Cheney/Addington administration. Anyone that screams about "what part of illegal don't you understand" and supports this administration has a very serious credibility problem. IMHO

3:49 is wrong Again! wrote on Jun 27, 2007 6:13 PM:From Rasmussen survey 2005: "December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree." Hey, more power to us!

su-z-q wrote on Jun 27, 2007 6:22 PM:To Ron. What on earth is Wa-La?

LaLa wrote on Jun 27, 2007 6:54 PM:to Alf, 6/27, 4:56 pm: I agree that transition from liberal to conservative has been the general case. But I think a sea-change is coming. As the current younger generation, and the next, become aware of just how royally they have been screwed over, they will not settle for the status quo of conservatism. They will want change, and lots of it. Previously, as liberals, the Democratic Party would have been their party of choice. I don't see that as a viable option anymore.

to Jules wrote on Jun 27, 2007 7:43 PM:You say..."but we do need change, tolerance and empathy."...So, let's say "change" is limiting or cutting back on government-controlled programs; and "tolerance" is tolerating evangelical Christian values in America; and "empathy" is acceptance of the female conservative business entrepreneur making money to support her family and she absolutely despises taxes: The question is: Are you really all about change, tolerance, and empathy? Or is it just a fancy talking point that you picked up from some liberal website? Are you really all about change, tolerance, and empathy? Or is it only your SELECT change, tolerance, and empathy?

Are you kidding 6:13 post? wrote on Jun 27, 2007 10:37 PM:Look how the question is worded. It states nothing about illegal domestic wiretapping or opening of the mail of anyone the NSA chooses to spy on. It is an impeachable offense. Worded according to how it was/is conducted a majority of Americans are dead set against it.

to 5:59 pm post wrote on Jun 27, 2007 10:39 PM:Yes, liberals demanded the Bill of rights, including your beloved 2nd amendment, which you consistently interpret incorrectly.

Alf wrote on Jun 28, 2007 8:39 AM:Much depends, "to Alf", on what you mean by "have never cost you more in the long run". A welfare state in which tens of millions of babies were born and raised by "welfare mothers" carries an horrific cost and I'm not talking only about money. The problems that were created by that system, the problems that we had to go through to "fix" that system (not yet fully done, I might add) are monetary AND social AND attitudinal, to name ONLY A FEW. Do not confuse "entitlement" with real social reform. My "entitlements" are only those specified in the Bill of Rights, everything else requires MY WORK. The ATTITUDE expressed by the advocates of the current grocery-workers strike is one of entitlement and that is WRONG. I am entitled to pursue happiness, not to have it. I am entitled to look for a job, not to have one. Do you see the difference? Can you see the difference? Will you see the difference? Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

To 6:13 wrote on Jun 28, 2007 8:46 AM:To repeat: popularity is completely irrelevent. The warrantless searches are illegal. This is obvious, but a court has also said so. If 100% of us liked the program, it would still be illegal. What part of "illegal" do you not understand? Our rights have been repeatedly and illegally violated. Period.

Alf wrote on Jun 28, 2007 8:49 AM:Well, "LaLa" at 6:54PM, the question is really whether we can have a majority in a three party system. What to do?? Your guess is as good as mine, maybe better. Still anunashamed Libertarian, Alf.

LaLa wrote on Jun 28, 2007 12:35 PM:Re: post of 6/27,7:43pm: One implication is that evangelical Christian values are not sufficiently tolerated. Please expand on this.