News-Record.com

"I would like this election to be decided by an intelligent discussion of the urgent and important issues facing our nation."

Then don't look in this blog. Here, you will get called names, be lumped in with stereotypes, and have your opinion marginalized. But "intelligent discussion" is hard to come by these days.

I've asked numerous times for the people who railed against myself and others four years ago, to put their money where their mouths are and cite the benefits of McCain rather than merely the shortcomings of Obama. I saw another challenge a few days ago making the same point. When we were attacking Bush in 2004, we were villified for not praising Kerry.

Yet now, four years later, there are almost exclusively anti-Obama letters. And the support for these letters is provided by the very hypocrites who were so vicious four years ago. Anyway, if you want intelligent debate, good luck in your quest.

Read this line again Howie:

"They are calling him an elitist because in this day and age they cannot come right out and call him an uppity N-word."

It basically translates to "if you don't like Obama then you are a racist."

You call this intelligent debate?

"How can anyone be an elitist who was raised by a single mother and started his career as a community organizer?"

What is that supposed to mean? Remember this Obama quote given in San Francisco?

"So it’s not surprising then that they (Pennsylvanians) get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

"When we were attacking Bush in 2004, we were villified for not praising Kerry. "

Face it Howie, Kerry wasn't the most exiciting candidate for in '04, McCain isn't the most exciting candidate in '08.

I don't know, Dan. If I look two letters down the list, I'm told that the only reason people are voting for Obama is because of his skin color. So I think there is still plenty of racism in this discussion.

'I'm told that the only reason people are voting for Obama is because of his skin color."

Then how do you explain the fact that a vast majority of black people, over 90% in some states, voted for Obama over Hillary in the primaries?

If that many vote for Obama over a fellow Democrat, then imagine what percentage will vote for Obama over McCain.

I remember very well the same crowd trashing Obama now calling Kerry the same names and passing on the same repub rhetoric, with the exception of color.

How refreshing it would be to read some original thoughts rather than the same old same old. The same words, used over and over, lose their meaning.

You guys seem oblivious to the fact that trashing in politics works both ways. Unfortunately that's just the way it is, even more so with the anonymity of the blogosphere.

McBush he's called. Bush's third term. A warmonger. He's going to immediately start a war in Iran. He's senile, etc. etc.

Must be a nice view from up there.

Yvonne,

"The same words, used over and over, lose their meaning."

Are you referring to the word "racist"?

There are some linear thinking individuals who think that Obama is so weak that they have to cut off any examination of his "credentials" by using the race card.

All of their dismissive responses simply show that they are projecting their own racism.

"I would like this election to be decided by an intelligent discussion of the urgent and important issues facing our nation."

Me too Mikel. When I see $4.00/gallon gas, the need for more domestic oil production and a presidential candidate says the following I wonder where the intelligent discussion is.

"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tuneups you could actually save just as much."

Dan,

While you're making fun of Obama's suggestion, have you actually considered that he is 100% correct?

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html

From the article:
"In other words: Obama is right."

I know, it's from the right wing blacklisted liberal rag "Time" magazine, but still...

Turn off Rush every now and then. Consider that waiting 22 years for 200,000 barrels per day is (literally) only a drop.

Why the hammering away at Obama, rather than touting the virtues of McCain?

Simple. McCain is a known quantity, with a long record. Obama is out-of-nowhere new. Worse, his exceedingly thin record of accomplishments, his background and his beliefs --- such as they can be ascertained from his limited history --- will get very little critical examination by an infatuated liberal media.

It wouldn't be smart for citizens to sit idly by and let the media elect the next president.

Doubly risky for the U. S., Obama is a diversity candidate. As everyone knows, any truths/realities that cast an unfavorable light on diversity ANYTHING, cannot be candidly reported for obvious reasons.

So what's the best use of a good citizen's time? Keep the spotlight on Mr. Hope-and-Change, especially on just what that "change" might be.

So it's risky to elect Obama because he is not white? I have not been quick to cry racism, but when the standards for one candidate are different from another, because of his race, what else can one call it?

"Obama is out-of-nowhere new. Worse, his exceedingly thin record of accomplishments, his background and his beliefs --- such as they can be ascertained from his limited history --- will get very little critical examination by an infatuated ... media.

It wouldn't be smart for citizens to sit idly by and let the media elect the next president."

You may be right. That happened eight years ago, and the country will suffer for decades because of it.

But my only point with the observation about hammering Obama vs. touting the benefits of Mr. "Best Available", Mr. Shuford, is to highlight the hypocrisy of our neighbors who were so critical four years ago.

At one point, Republican Senators Thad Cochran and Pete Domenici both expressed fear at the thought of their Republican colleague, Sen. McCain, becoming president. Fear! "A known quanity."

"He's going to immediately start a war in Iran."

The ruling Islamic theocracy of Iran has been fighting the US in Iraq by proxy for 5 years.

It will be Bush who puts an end to it. Get ready for $5/gallon gas!

Howie G: "...my only point with the observation about hammering Obama vs. touting the benefits of Mr. 'Best Available', Mr. Shuford, is to highlight the hypocrisy of our neighbors who were so critical four years ago."

Let me offer a partial defense of your "neighbors."

Despite the incompetence and arrogance of George W. Bush, I am not sure those who voted for Bush (and thus rejected Al Gore and John Kerry) made the wrong decision.

One reason: appointed judges, those unelected public officials that control so much of our lives and whose tenure on the Bench will long, LONG outlast the fellow who appoints them.

Americans simply have NO IDEA how much their lives are directed by unelected, "Living" --- that is, evolving, morphing changing, make-it-up-as-you-go-along --- Constitution judges.

The public has NO IDEA how much of our problems today are due to the personal policy preferences of living and long dead ACLU-type judges exercising immense and unaccountable power in so many realms of public policy.

Mr. Shuford,

Swing and a miss. I'm on record saying that I can honestly see why Bush won the first time. Gore couldn't close the deal, and Bush offered himself as "an outsider", "a uniter not a divider", "someone who will reach across the aisle", "not interested in nation-building", and all that other BS that has been long proven to be lies.

But the second time, when we knew what we were getting, I cannot understand. I know, the fear angle was played up, the Swift boat lies were never handled well, the media was still recovering from "we can't challenge Bush or we'll be called traitors" mode. But still, with the country headed down this horrendous spiral, to vote him for a second term was absolutely the wrong decision.

Activist judges, or "ACLU-type judges", or whatever you call them, pale by comparison to the long-lasting damage of this administration. Moral high ground has been surrendered in the world. Our troops are more in danger because of his own activist judges who have authorized torture on technicalities, and our debt will take legitimate sacrifice for years. So, when compared to the moral decay of gay marriage or whatever issues get you stirred up, on balance, I've got to say it's no contest.

Mikel Taylor,
You've gotten off to a bad start on the "intelligent discussion" stuff. Just FYI... Calling people racists usually wont get the conversation off on the right foot! Ah, the old"I am a tolerant person... as long as you agree with me." mentality shows itself everytime.

Howie,
I agree that this is a tough place to have a discussion. However, it must be noted the trash comes from both left and right.

The News-Record's low standards for a letter to the editor got lower, when I didn't think it possible. How a letter that uses the words "uppity N-word" could pass muster, then the News-Record no longer has any standards. Truly a desperate and sad organization.

Never said it didn't, Mick.

Howie: "Activist judges, or 'ACLU-type judges', or whatever you call them, pale by comparison to the long-lasting damage of this administration. Moral high ground has been surrendered in the world . . . when compared to the moral decay of gay marriage or whatever issues get you stirred up, on balance, I've got to say it's no contest."

Howie, gay marriage is the perennial sideshow for "activist" judges. It doesn't begin to scratch the surface of today's rule-by-judiciary.

Example: Plyler v. Doe, in 1982 --- a 5-to-4 policy preference decision (i.e., legislating from the bench) --- made taxpayers liable for the K-12 educations of children residing illegally in the United States. No other judicial and legislative act has contributed more to the illegal mass movement of families to the United States.

Ten percent of public school enrollment is now a DIRECT RESULT of illegal immigration, greatly accelerated by the one-judge majority that ruled in Plyler v. Doe.

That's just in the area of law with which I'm most familiar. Anchor baby citizenship --- granting citizenship to the children of illegal alien parents --- is also monumental transformation of society resulting from judicial error.

Bottom line: "Moral high ground" in the world is a fleeting thing; the rapid displacement of the native-born population by mass illegal immigration is a far more durable phenomenon --- all courtesy of make-it-up-as-they-go-along judges.

That's just ONE policy domain --- immigration --- totally dominated by judges' policy preferences, not the text of the Constitution.

Try to imagine how many other realms of social activity are governed by judicial usurpation.

You can have your ephemeral "moral high ground".

Mr. Shuford.

I think we exchanged some banter previously about how your thoughts are prone to exaggeration and hyperbole. I see that was not a temporary condition. Striking fear in the hearts of the majority, are you? "Live in fear, white folks. Your very way of life is at stake". This decision you refer to was over 25 years ago, and you're trying to make it hysteria now?

As for the moral high ground being fleeting -- you're dead wrong. We held that for decades -- centuries. We didn't attack unprovoked (unless you believe Gulf of Tonkin speculation). We didn't torture. We accepted the rules of the now "quaint" Geneva convention. Now, we lack the authority to step in when our allies are at risk. And much worse, our troops are susceptible to the same kinds of torture and mistreatment that many fought and died to rid the world of, only because our "judges" have found enough wiggle room in executive privilege to let it slide. This is an afront to what many of our values rest upon.

Your examples do not measure up.

ORR, the N-word appeals to a segment of the N&R readership. I often hear the Nword blaring from stereos in other cars when I'm in some of the older neighborhoods in the less expensive parts of town.

The N&R are just capitalists pandering to a market segment that is base and self-degrading.

Tom Shuford, of the five Supreme Court justices who (correctly) decided Plyler v Doe, four of them were appointed by Republican presidents.

But thank you for offer up another example of how the Republican party play voters for suckers: They lead voters to believe that, if they are elected, they will somehow deliver social changes anathema to the US Constitution. It never happens and the sucker voter is left dismayed while the real agenda, policies that favor the economic elite, don't do a damn thing to address real problems. The tactics of mass distraction keep middle class Republican voters from voting for anything that matters, like their own economic interests.

Howie: "...your thoughts are prone to exaggeration and hyperbole . . . Striking fear in the hearts of the majority, are you? 'Live in fear, white folks. Your very way of life is at stake'."

Excellent response, Howie. Gets right to the heart of the matter. Alas, there is no need to debate this issue. We need only look to the data.

Los Angeles is a laboratory for understanding the consequences of liberal judge-driven social engineering and demographic displacement.

Think back on Plyler v. Doe (1982), Proposition 187 (blocked by a single Jimmy Carter-appointed Judge in 1995) and also on the massive disruptive forced racial balance busing across L. A. County of the 70s (my suburban nephew, for example, was assigned to an inner-city LA school).

Now peruse these maps of demographic change in Los Angeles County:

Los Angeles County Racial/Ethnic Diversity (1940-2000)

6 maps: 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000

Select a map and click on it for details:
http://lewis.sppsr.ucla.edu/special/metroamerica/ladiversity.htm

* * *
California was 92 percent non-Hispanic white in 1962 when I spent part of my summer there. It's a very different place today --- 55 percent of births are to Hispanics.

Now the result will delight some and worry others. It's a matter of personal preference.

Likewise, decisions 1) to bus children across town for racially balance classrooms 2) to force taxpayers to pay for the schooling of children illegally residing in the U. S. and 3) to block efforts to curb services to illegal aliens (Prop 187) is also a matter of personal preference --- the personal preference of judges.

What will be the personal preferences of judges Obama would appoint if elected?

Shuford, If you are going to continue to cite Plyler as a "bad" Supreme Court decision, please include the fact that it was decided by Republican Supreme Court appointees.

But that would completely undermine his argument, Membername.

And Mr. Shuford, to your comment: "Excellent response, Howie. Gets right to the heart of the matter.", I actually think it was relevant. I was noting a pattern in your writing where you attempt to generate hysteria. I think last time it was that gay marriage would lead to less heterosexual males wanting to get married, meaning that society as we know it was perched at the edge of the abyss. So I was highlighting your tendency to exaggerate to properly frame the context of the "white way of life threatened by Jimmy Carter's judge" line of thought.

Membername: "Shuford, If you are going to continue to cite Plyler as a 'bad' Supreme Court decision, please include the fact that it was decided by Republican Supreme Court appointees."

Membername, decades ago when liberal judges who decided Plyler were appointed, Republican presidents did not give appointees anything like the scrutiny they get today. That's because the living constitution mode of interpretation was in its infancy. then. No one realized the potential it had to wreak havoc.

Even as late as the presidency of George H. W. Bush in the 80s, a non-entity with no paper trail, David Souter, was nominated and able to get through the confirmation process. (Bush, I believe, was facing a Democratic Senate and thought he had to play it safe).

Nobody knew much about Souter. There wasn't much to know, but a Republican senator from New England, Warren Rudman, vouched for him and he was in. Now he is a reliable liberal vote on the Supreme Court.

But that was then.

Bush II, was not going to let that happen to him. And it didn't.

Bottom line: With a modern-day Democratic Party President, liberal judges are a guaranteed result. With a modern-day Republican Party president, that outcome is increasingly unlikely. George W. Bush's two appointees, John Roberts and Samuel Alito are cases in point.

"Consider that waiting 22 years for 200,000 barrels per day is (literally) only a drop. "

Why not drill anyway? Are we that dependent on sucking from the oil company tax revenue teats that we can't endure a few years of them paying less tax while they develop new oil fields?

What is the harm?

Secondly, with the advent of the digital age and computers shouldn't we be searching and prospecting for new oil fields anywhere? Why the audacity to think we know it all when areas have been closed to exploration for decades?

If new, overwhelming fossil fuel resources are discovered and come online, alternative energy is the loser. If Alternative energy loses, there goes climate change and the change to a carbon economy.

Lose both and the democrat/greens will lose the two biggest platforms they've fought for over the past 5 years and the basis for their entire future as a political party.

Howie G: "I was highlighting your tendency to exaggerate to properly frame the context of the 'white way of life threatened by Jimmy Carter's judge' line of thought."

Howie, as to the ethnic/tribal implications of judge's decisions, I can't say it better than a high official of the Democratic Party, California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres.

Here is Torres speaking to a Chicano audience after a Jimmy Carter-appointed judge struck down Proposition 187 in 1995:

"Power is not given to you. You have to take it. Remember, 187 is the last gasp of white America in California. Understand that."

Listen to one-minute Real-Audio clip: 5th hyperlinked item:
http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/TORRES.html

I happen to think Torres is right. I admire him for his candor, which, of course, was not reported by the California media.

The point, lest we stray too far from it, however, is that judges (who are, after all, highly fallible human beings --- no smarter than you and certainly no smarter than me) have immense power.

What would Obama-type appointees do with all that power?

The editorial page editors refuse to let me say that I believe liberalism is simply a mental illness. Apparently they never read the responses from the usual suspects in this section.

I have almost total disdain for both Obama and McCain. These are the two worst candidates ever (at the same time. How can we ever forget Mc Govern, Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, and Kerry) .

Having said that, the only candidate in this contest to mention Obama's skin color is Obama! And the N word (nitwit) certainly applies to Obama!

The editorial page editors refuse to let me say that I believe liberalism is simply a mental illness. Apparently they never read the responses from the usual suspects in this section.

I have almost total disdain for both Obama and McCain. These are the two worst candidates ever (at the same time. How can we ever forget Mc Govern, Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, and Kerry) .

Having said that, the only candidate in this contest to mention Obama's skin color is Obama! And the N word (nitwit) certainly applies to Obama!

"McBush he's called."

Dan, I'm shocked.

"The editorial page editors refuse to let me say that I believe liberalism is simply a mental illness."

ToMo, trust me they had your best interest at heart.

Howie, your Time/CNN link was a joke. Did you read it all? It cites "efficiency experts" who estimate the savings from properly inflated tires, no mention of who they are or their factual published studies. It further chides Republicans in that conservation doesn't fit their right winger strategy and takes a stab at "oilmen" Bush & Cheney. (Halliburton isn't an oil company).

It then lauds compact florescent bulbs, you know the ones that contain mercury and recommend evacuating the room if one breaks.

Nice fair and balanced piece Howie. No wonder why a copy of Time is razor thin nowadays.

I am for keeping tires properly inflated and maintaining vehicles, I do it with my own. Your piece states if everyone did this it would save X amount of oil. Well everyone isn't going to do it, face reality.

Defend Obama's statement all you want, but it isn't true at best and sounds downright silly at worse.

Tom,

How can one judge pass or defeat any bill/legislation? I understand the vote was 5-4. Therefore, four judges voted before Carters' appointee voted. Had any one of them voted differently, the vote would have gone in a different direction.

To me, it's like a batter who makes the third out. If two batters before him had not made an out, the team would not have to take the field. Rarely is one person fully to blame just as rarely is one person deserving of all the credit.

Dan,

Specifically, the words flip-flop and elitist come to mind as useless words that have been used almost exclusively by repubs.

WJ Ellis,

Please refer to the post to Dan. I have stated I think this campaign is more about what it has always been about, dems vs repubs. Fear has been more a repub tactic and in Obama they use fear of "change". Same tactic with a twist. Had Hillary been the presidential candidate, it would be fear of her being a woman in a man's world (only they would not have had the gonads to put it so bluntly).

I think every post I've ever seen by Mr. Shuford is best summed up as:

"If there's a problem in America, there's a Democrat behind it."

"Specifically, the words flip-flop and elitist come to mind as useless words that have been used almost exclusively by repubs."

When the shoe fits, wear it.

algore tells us to reduce our "carbon footprint" (love the term) lest the entire planet faces imminent doom. Meanwhile he flies around on private jets and his home uses 20X the energy of a normal home. Elitist.

John Kerry. King of flip flops, best one: I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it. If you don't think this guy is an elitist I've got a bridge for sale in Alaska.

Obama.

Bitter people clinging to their guns and religion, you've heard the quote. Elitist.

The flip flop list is long for Obama and I have to get dinner on the table.

Recent flip flops, opposed offshore drilling but will now consider it. (Translation, he read the polls). Opposed taking oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (as do I) but now wants to.

My favorite, Iran is a tiny country of no threat to the United States. Days later; Iran is a grave threat.

I pointed out in a recent thread that your Dems vs. Repubs conclusion is wrong. There are many Repubs who don't plan on voting for McCain and many Dems who don't favor Obama. I even posted links, but I guess you didn't look at them.

As a conservative I don't favor McCain, he is the better of two evils. In fact the RNC called me asking for $$. I told them no way until the Republican party returns to it's conservative principles, especially curtailing the growth of govt. and allowing illegals to invade our country.

"When ... a presidential candidate says the following I wonder where the intelligent discussion is.

"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tuneups you could actually save just as much."

... well as far as I can tell, the statement is true Dan.

Since the USA has 3% of the worlds oil ...
Assuming the USA has 3% in undiscovered oil ...
Assuming proper tire inflation saves about 3% ...

... proper tire inflation is as useful as drilling America into Swiss Cheese

Tom Shuford said:

... I am not sure those who voted for Bush ... made the wrong decision.

"One reason: appointed judges ... " bla bla bla.

Your assertion, Tom that these wre "fair and balanced" .. when the were nominated on basis totally unrelated to the Constitution, i.e., nominated based on some lower level capital R serf determining their reliability as a "con"servative ... shows your highly partisan blind eye standards.

Shame on you.

"a 5-to-4 policy preference decision (i.e., legislating from the bench)"

well theb get ready for a couple decades of "Fair and balanced" legislation from the SC bench.

... of course if the 5-4 is for something you like, then it's "Fair and Balanced". Otherwise it's "legislation from the bench".

What a pile of crap.

JDR:

Your usual MO: a string of end-of-thread junk posts.

Purpose: to trivialize the thread and distract readers from devastating (to the Democratic Party) earlier posts.

Not a bad strategy --- considering your options.

Tom S.

You must not have read my 5:09 post JDR, not everyone is going to keep their tires inflated properly.

And some are already doing it!

DITTO Tom, DITTO.

I have not “trivialized the thread”. Contrary to your heart of hearts, the Democratic Party is not the end of America. Do they suck? Sure, but no more and no less than the Republican party. You wanna cheer one group as the lesser of two evils, fine, but you’re a partisan hack.

Here’s a suggestion: Whenever you criticize (or praise) one group, turn it around. Had Clinton encouraged a lower level capital D serf to determine if Judges had a liberal bias before recommending them, you’d be screaming bloody murder .. but you’re ok with the R-vett because they would n­_e_v_e_r recommend activist judges. Bull shit.

As for “junk posts” ... Did Art Torres say something worth criticizing? Sure. Did one single jimmy-judge ruin the world for conservatives? Hardly – but spin away, bro’, someone will buy your bridge to no-where.

Do you have anything to say beyond Plyler v. Doe .. rationalized because the “liberal judges who decided Plyler were appointed [by] Republican presidents [without] the scrutiny they get today”. Whatever. All Judges are activists .. using the “living constitution” or the “original intent” argument as needed - pick and chose. Even Scalia says (paraphrased) “If some earlier judge went outside the constitution, I can’t do anything about that .. “ He too picks and chooses. Is he acting in earnest? I’m sure he is, but so are the others who do not agree with his assessment.

As for “end-of-thread” ... sorry, I work for a living.

==

Yes I read your 5:09 post, Dan. I’m sure wifee appreciates your keeping her tires properly inflated; maybe you could give lessons.

Hugh said, we can’t inflate ourselves out of this predicament. Neither can we drill ourselves out. We can figure out ways to do more with less, such as your buying a much higher gpm automobile .. but the constant rag of tire pressure is stupid no maybe it is a valid point but there is no credibility in Time magazine and the popularity of FOX News proves its truth and we want the government out of our lives except when it is on issues we support and the wide eyed queen (or Torres) speaks for all who disagree with me … one single jimmy-judge ruined the world … etc

There’s intelligent life out there, but it is wasted on My-Team is Better Than Your-Team.