Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 1:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you Mr. Cooper for the fine article! As a strong Conservative, I must agree with you!

Posted by bombingeight (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 1:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I suggest that if you think that the right to own a gun is without conditions, you just might be ignorant of the 2nd Amendment's interpretation by this court. If you think the invocation of religious beliefs substitutes for rational thought, you might find a home in Tehran. Wisdom in editorials are helpful. Perhaps you can do better next time.

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 1:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What is scary is that 4 of the court's justices do not believe "the people" of the 1rst Amendment are the same "the people" of the 2nd Amendment. Oh well, at least a correct majority carried the day.

Good editorial Kevin. It seems the Democrat has come a long long way from the days of Dolph Tillotson.

Posted by frogprincenessntz (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 2:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Kevin, you will take many hits for this article although it is true. What is really scary is how many so called "Christians" are joining his ranks thinking they can be tolerant of other religions. They should go back to their Bibles and read 1John 4:2-4 and 2John 7-11. We are clearly warned to be on the outlook for these deceivers and their messages of other ways to God than Christ. The most stupid is that they want to call themselves "Christian" and then deny Christ. You either choose Christ or you choose Obama...it is that simple.

Posted by observer (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My belief is that we don't "choose" Christ" - He chooses us, and it has nothing to do with Obama or McCain. You and I have the right to believe whatever we wish in this country - that's why most of our ancestors "chose" to come here in the first place. Render unto Ceasar

Posted by Hambone (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good job KC.

Posted by sobeit (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama as our president scares me to death!!!

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well I agree that you can't write a good editorial every time....

Just like there are special exceptions to all the other personal rights including habeas corpus, security from gov't prying in your effects, etc, there are exceptions to gun ownership liberties. We all know that. You think we allow gun ownership when we bust someone's doors down in Falluja?

I will not give up my guns, period. So I live in the country, and in a town where the sheriff understands human beings and guns for law abiding citizens are no real issue.

If I chose to live in an urban sprawl rife with the refuse rejected from our economical go-getter economic hustle, I would give up other perks, and gun bans aren't out of the question in a country that bans so many other things in our interest. No matter they might not be smart. Since when is being smart a part of government or culture? Since when is it smart to live in DC?

I have oft heard the statistics that handguns hurt more people by far accidentally -- or hurt members of the owners family far more often than they hurt assailants or potential assailants. If that is true your premise is probably stupid, Kevin, for citing a gun's innocence if it sits on a shelf.

Mostly, gun issues are a political red-herring for folks who Foxworthy knows quite well. Simple folks who vote single-issue simple principles. The same folks often don't know how their principles get applied.

A total gun ban in this country would take an absolute authority of an anti-gun president or a congress that had been completely broken. It looks to me like a vote for Obama is a step away from both of those. So what if he thinks that handguns in some places along with RPG's and mortars should be regulated?

Any law enforcement officer knows that a great many things that are illegal might be responsibly engaged by some people. Being illegal and the cause for search or seizure simply gives law enforcement another tool for interdiction.

You may not have evidence to search a suspect based on knowing he is a murderer, but you certainly can detain him and search him if he seems to have a gun. It gives you a moment to examine and see things you might not see otherwise. That's how law enforcement works.

I bet you find some rednecks here that cheer on your editorial, who ain't going to vote for Obama anyway. But if you don't vote for Obama, you vote for the further establishment of the absolute presidency enshrined by Bush's court appointments that McCain would continue. One day you might well get a president who would just command you not have them and send the goons out to enforce his decree.

Please, please don't encourage these poor rednecks around here to think and vote on terms best illustrated by redneck comedians. You should be ashamed of yourself pandering to the locals that way.

Posted by Hardcorps (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh pretty well thought out. Most "conservatives" I know are self righteous hypocritical, bigoted rednecks OR rich folks who are heavily invested in the corporations that run America.
This year we have super left wing obama or a seemingly escaped alsheimers patient who is walking around in circles on the podium with his forearms horizontal to the floor like he is wondering what to do next. He also has his head so far up dumbya's rear he can't see.
JMHO

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hardcorps...I guess I'm one of those you consider a self-righteous, bigoted redneck or a rich guy heavily invested in corporate America...I can assure you that neither is true of me or the vast majority of conservatives, who like me are just plain folks who just want good, efficient government...it may never happen, but we have to keep trying.

It might surprise you, but my thoughts are that Congress and the Supreme Court should abdicate their authority on this issue and relegate it to the States, who in turn should allow it to devolve to local government. In this way the people in each county in America could decide to what degree guns are allowed or disallowed is appropriate for their particular circumstances. In other words, a rural community could keep guns for sport, be it hunting or just target shooting on the other hand an urban area plagued by crime may have a very stringent control.

This could only occur if the Federal Government acted and acted intelligently...unfortunately, there hasn't been much of that evident lately.

Posted by Hardcorps (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam I agree with everything you said. Our grandkids will be paying for the debts incurred under this administration.
Good efficient government hasn't been seen in a long time. I am a registered Libertarian and am going to vote for Bob Barr since I can't vote for obama and don't want 4 more of the last 8. Whatever.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hardcorps...under this administration?...most of the debt was incurred under the benevolent dictatorship of Larry L. "Butch" Brown...we've just been treading water since.

Your vote is, of course, your vote, but I hate to see you waste it on Senator Barr's effort...he can only be at the most a spoiler which would in all probability be counterproductive to your political goals.

Posted by Hardcorps (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree about Butch. I was speaking of bush.

Posted by destiny (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why do most people keep referring to the past 8 yrs in such a negative way??? Am I alone in knowing that some good has come about during that time. I must be. This is a fantastic article Kevin and I am so happy to know you HEAR Obama the way I HEAR him. How could anyone in their right mind consider voting for someone to be our president and to lead the greatest free nation of the world, when he has proven to be so wishy-washy as this candidate is??? Why others cannot see him for what he truly is, a forked-tongue, mud-slinging bigoted (yes I said bigoted) bully. He degraded his own party's candidate and now has her begging votes for him, helping pay her debts, hugging and kissing her in front of the news media like they are long lost buddies and might even consider putting her and her obscene husband on his cabinet. America please be aware of whats going on before you push that doom's day button. And HARDCORE what would your arms look like, if you had any left, after being a prisoner of war and tortured beyond belief. I hope that remark does not come back to haunt you. You never know what can happen, cause what goes around comes around.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Owhampy is all mouth along with wife, Michelle! Hardcorp-You have lost your vote, sorry! Thanks for ylour support Sam and Destiny! Also, please say a prayer for the survival of the U.S. and the persons who can't see past their "nose!" Vote McCain!

Posted by Hardcorps (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am on staff on a U. S. Marine site. Marines only. Perhaps 40% will vote for McCain. The rest who can see past their noses will vote elsewhere. Most of these are combat vets and are tired of repub/corporate rule.

Check out.

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmcc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Fiv...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14475828

Is John McCain a Crook?
Chris Suellentrop
Posted Friday, Feb. 18, 2000, at 2:35 PM ET
The controversial George W. Bush-sponsored poll in South Carolina mentioned John McCain's role in the so-called Keating Five scandal, and McCain says his involvement in the scandal "will probably be on my tombstone." What exactly did McCain do?

In early 1987, at the beginning of his first Senate term, McCain attended two meetings with federal banking regulators to discuss an investigation into Lincoln Savings and Loan, an Irvine, Calif., thrift owned by Arizona developer Charles Keating. Federal auditors were investigating Keating's banking practices, and Keating, fearful that the government would seize his S&L, sought intervention from a number of U.S. senators.

Ronald Reagan was Right About Bush
While John McCain is eagerly embracing Bush and vowing to continue Bush's failed policies, it may be a good idea to remember what Ronald Reagan thought of the Little Bush:

"A moment I've been dreading. George brought his n'er-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida; the one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work."

From the REAGAN DIARIES------entry dated May 17, 1986.

So this is the guy we had shoved down our throats and who John McCain wants to emulate?

Army Veteran Against McCain May 30th, 2008 12:26 pm ET

Reasons why Veterans, active duty personell, and anyone who cares about them should not vote for McCain:

*AWOL for May 22nd vote on GI Bill. Expressed opposition to bill saying "it was too generous to Veterans".

*Voted against Bill in September that would have mandated adequate rest for troops between combat deployments.

*Voted No on $1.5-billion increase for Veteran Medical services (money would have come from closing corporate tax loophole).

*Voted No on establishing a trust fund to bolster underfunded Veteran Hospitals.

*Voted No in May 2006 against $20-billion allotment for expanding Veteran Medical Facilities.

*Voted No in April 2006 to increase Veteran Outpatient care.

*Voted No in March 2004 another $1.8-billion reserve for Veteran Medical care (again funded by closing corporate tax loopholes).

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hardcorps...sorry about the Butch thing, I got my blogs confused and was thinking we were talking of the local economy...LOL.

You are correct that we have built a massive debt during the last eight years, but also consider that the challenges to face the US have been unprecedented...9/11, Katrina, Rita, Iraq, Afghanistan, wild fires, flooding, cost of oil, housing market crash...and others.

Much of this required unbudgeted expenditure and was hardly Mr. Bush's fault. The economy is also in a cylical contraction which happens often after a spectacularly long period of strong economic growth...it is simply Mr. Bush's misfortune that it is happening now...It will recover, but people forget the long prosperity before the recent hard times for which Mr. Bush rarely receives credit.

I notice that of the three sites you posted are two are liberal and anti-Republican at all costs and at all times...not exactly unbiased opinions coming from them. It is also well known that Reagan and George, Sr. didn't like each other and the sentiment was extended naturally to the son.

GWB ran Zapata Oil and also the Texas Rangers prior to becoming governor of Texas, two high level corporate management jobs in very competitive industries and the governorship of one of our largest states, you nor Reagan can really say he never had a real job.

As I recall, McCain admitted he was in the wrong place at the wrong time vis a vis the Keating Five scandal, but he said he never did anything illegal and the ethics committee proved him to be innocent as he said. If he was guilty of something he wouldn't be running for president he'd be in jail or at least out of office in disgrace.

What Marine website are you affiliated with? Is it just as liberal as the ones you mentioned? Is it fomenting mutiny in the ranks during a time of war? Soldiers do have the right to vote, but do not have the luxury of expressing opinions while in active service that are critical of the commanders or the mission...I pray your not telling me that is happening or that you are an active participant in something like that.

Posted by humorme (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bush will go down in history as one of, if not the worst presidents. And yes it is his fault. If the country goes to Sh** on your watch then it is your fault. This is one of the risks you take when you get hired for the most powerful job in the world.

John Mcain is a great American and probably would have done a much better job than Bush had he won in 2000. Now in '08 he is a joke of a candidate. The GOP needs to regroup for the next time around and start to embrace the fact that Obama will most likely be running things by Jan.

Look on the bright side Kevin. YOu and all of your redneck, gun loving, conservative readers will have a whole 4 years of things to complain about.

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kevin,

you and I have head-butted several times, but on this issue, we stand arm-in-arm. I, too, have seen through all the political wrangling by the democratic candidate to see that his true heart is that we would all be dis-armed if it was left to him.

He and Billary can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

And they can take my Bible at the very same time.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 6:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

humorme...seems to me that history and not you will decide how GWB is rated as a president. As for it being his fault, no, not entirely, as I said he has faced unprecedented challenges and has face most as well as could be expected by anyone except those who choose to use them as political ammunition...like you!...Hoover had the same problem...getting blamed for a depression that wasn't of his making...GHWB, same thing...hit an economic slump at election time causing his demise, but the policies of Reagan and GHWB allowed Clinton to take credit for an extended period of record growth.

How is McCain a joke?...he's an American hero, Obama's not...he's got a record of accomplishment in the Senate few can rival, certainly not Obama, he's got both domestic and international experience, Obama just knows Chicago, he's reached across the aisle on several occasions just to get something anything positive done and has been one of the few that has been successful, Obama has rarely been there and either doesn't vote or votes one way and then another...McCain is very serious as a candidate, but I hope you keep underestimating him, if you do we'll win for sure.

Some conservatives may be redneck, some may be gun loving, some are, some aren't.

According to most Democrats, we're either rednecks, fundamentalists or rich corporate types, all to be scorned...you can't have it both ways unless you admit that conservatives come from all walks of life from country redneck to corporate CEO, which makes the Republican party far more inclusive than the Democratic party.

The problem with you Democrats is the arrogance that allows you to think you're so superior to all others that you can determine what we common citizens are and are not allowed to do because you know better...I hope you personally come to collect my gun and Bible when Obama outlaws them...you'll find out very quickly it wasn't such a good idea.

Posted by Username (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll vote "none of the above"
In the year of the REPUBLICRATS
I know more democrats that support McCain than republicans and I also think that Bob Barr is not really a spoiler he is a libertarian by name only(Glen Beck,Neil Boortz),his voting record does not reflect that of a libertarian.I personally think that Barr is hoping to get the Ron Paul votes but....Ron Paul has a voting record to back up what he says Bob Barr does not.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 7:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think you are wrong about Bush going down as one of our worst presidents , Humorne. I think whenever we start moving a little farther away from this time period in our history and everthing that has happened in Bushs presidency, we will have a much more clear picture of these past 8 yrs. . I believe we are more in fear of our future than we have been as a nation since the War Between the States . That's one reason so many people don't know who they want to vote for . Most of us realize this election could possibly make us or it could break us . If you want Obama Hussien ,then you are gambling bigtime on your childrens future . Believe me,he is not ready & may never be . It's now or never for McCain . He's ready and he is steady . There is no doubt there . Vote McCain!

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Southernbelle...I agree with much of what you say, but I'm not afraid...we shouldn't be "more in fear of our future than we have been as a nation since the War Between the States"...did you forget WWI, or WWII, that was a big one, or the Cold War...the US will survive, the question is how and by what method...if you want socialism by another name, vote Democratic...if you don't want socialism the choice is pretty clear.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 8:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Amen Sam!

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

McCain - "Ready and Steady"! I love it!

Posted by Zhena (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 10:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Kevin, I have doubts about your comment, that he had nothing to do with choosing his name. This is an excerpt from an admittedly conservative blog. I found it interesting none the less. As a southern Christian, I do not cling to my guns or religion, but am thankful for both. As they have both saved my life.

13 fact finder // May 10, 2008 at 7:47 pm

Barack Obama won’t release his birth certificate. This is because his name at birth was “Barry” and it would serve as evidence that he later took the Muslim names of Barack Hussein when he was young and studying the Koran. It isn’t unusual for Muslim men to take on new names when they have a renewed interest in Islam.
14 trey100k // May 17, 2008 at 11:12 pm
The real reason his birth certificate won’t be released until after the election is that he would be disqualified due to the fact that his mother needed to have waited 3 more years for him to have automatic U.S. citizenship. Please read on….

It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president afterall for the following reason:

Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth,
which falls between “December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986″ . Presidential office requires a natural-born
citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, which of course is what exempts
John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal.

US Law very clearly stipulates:

“…If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided
in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.”

Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born,
which means though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years,
(or citizen perhaps because of Hawai’i being a territory) the mother fails the test for
being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama’s birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn’t matter *after* . In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship.
At most, there were only 2 years elapsed
since his mother had turned 16 before Barack Obama’s birth when she was 18 in Hawai’i.

His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama’s birth for him to have been a natural-born
citizen. As aformentioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Cizen parent.

Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.

*** Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President. ***

This is very clear cut and a blaring violation of U.S. election law.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder Why someone has not taken this info and "run with it"?

Posted by speakeasy (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It seems Mr. Cooper's interest in politics should focus on the local situation. That would seem to be most appropriate, in fact rather an obligation, I would think. There's plenty out there if he doesn't mind getting his feet muddy. Leave the big stuff to the big guys who know what they're talking about. Guns? Rednecks? Please. Give us a break. That's downright insulting!

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam or EnK- Are you all awake? Comments on Zhena's posting?

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 10:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

speakeasy...Kevin and all of us have every right and indeed the obligation to focus not only on local politics, but also national and international politics. When it really comes down to the nut, er, truth, the big boys haven't really a clue what's happening on the ground in good ole everyday USA...that's why they're overwhelmingly liberal.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rushinghjr...haven't had the chance to research it yet, but you can bet I will...I wonder if, knowing EnK, he might not have taken on an alterego and posted this one...LOL.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 11:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rushinghjr...at first blush, to meet the minimum requirements for being president one must be: 1. a natural born citizen of the US. 2. At least 35 years of age. 3. A resident of the US for at least 14 years prior to running for president.

Although I'm not an Obama supporter, I suspect that his birth certificate is readily available since it is a matter of public record. Barry, could simply be a simple anglicization of his real name to make his life easier in an anglo world.

While Obama's father was not a US citizen, from what I can tell his mother was...and if I'm not mistaken he was born in Hawaii, which, at the time of his birth (1961, unless he's somehow lying about his age) was and still is a US state...he has also been a resident of the US for 14 years or more, making him, guess what?, eligible as far as I can tell.

Unless there is additional law or some of his family history that I may be unaware of (and apparently the media is also unaware of), Zhena is just wishful thinking...maybe the requirements should be stricter, but that's another argument. He may not be qualified according to the voting populace, but, far as I can tell, he's perfectly qualified to run.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

An interesting side note to the qualification issue...most people don't know that both McCain's father and also his grandfather were admirals in the US Navy, both having given distinguished service during times of war. Additionally, the grandfather was a good ole Mississippi born fella...rock steady and ready...McCAIN!

Posted by fire39212 (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 11:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People should see Obama is already begging people wanting hand outs for hilary...Hilary made that debt let her and bill pay it..Why should obama beg for money for her? Goes to show you hes begging now how much will he beg in the future?

Posted by djarum_black (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 2:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sorry.. I just have to comment here..

"Posted by destiny (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why do most people keep referring to the past 8 yrs in such a negative way??? Am I alone in knowing that some good has come about during that time. I must be."

Yes, Destiny.. I think you are. Whatever minor good that may or may not have come about during the last eight years has been greatly overshadowed by the bad.

We're in massive military debt with no forseeable end, over a war which started as retaliation for 9/11 as the hunt for Osama bin Laden, somehow got manipulated into a hunt for Saddam Hussein, and then got spun into a "Liberation of Iraq" thing. We're supposed to swallow vague comments about terrorism and fighting terrorism and that's why it's okay to send young men and women out to get killed over.. wait a second.. WHAT is this war for again? I forgot. Something about terrorism and Al Quaeda and.. mercy me, I haven't heard a mention of bin Laden from the White House in, maybe four or five years now?

No one can afford to go to the doctor.. it's getting harder every day to buy the gas to go to work.. and we get to hear an awful lot of vague and downright belligerent doubletalk from our President every time he's asked to answer for his decisions. In the last three months, a pack of hamburger that has typically cost me $9.38 has soared up to about $14. Bag of grated cheese? from 7.00 to over 9.00. Maybe that doesn't sound like a whole lot to you, but if you really do care about trying to provide nutritious meals for your family, those extra two or more dollars per item mean the difference between pre-packaged cheap foods and good meats and vegetables.

But it's ALL OKAY provided that Bush uses Christian terminology to manipulate people who WANT to believe that he means it and cares about God and families. As long as he ends all of his speeches with a prayer, of course he's a great guy. What of all the families going without practical things that families need, if not outright losing familiy members in the military?

Any person can say what they think people will want to hear, they don't have to mean it. I hear people accusing Obama of it, and that he'll never deliver.

But Bush has a track record of it, which is why a lot of people are getting ready to vote Democrat. JUST to avoid helping anyone into office who might agree with Bush and any of his policies.

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 6:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Most of this little exchange shows that the rest of the country need not fear a "redneck revolution." For eight years conservative brainwashers have fed their flock stuff like this ("Barack Obama will not release his birth certificate!" "You either choose Christ or Obama!"), and the flock has only grown more willfully ignorant. The rest of us realize that there's more to worry about than whether or not somebody's gonna take your guns away (they're not), or whether your gay cousin can get married. Our economy's in the tank and we're spending everything we don't have in a country that didn't have anything to do with an attack on our country.

Wait, maybe the redneck revolution happened eight years ago. In which case maybe we should've been afraid.

This whole article was just an indulgent editorial exercise built around a not-so-clever made-up word (Obama-neck). At most papers, this would've been left on the cutting-room floor. But good job getting the pot stirred up needlessly. I'm sure it has nothing to do with online ad revenue.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Destinys right - you who back Obama are wrong. if he runs the country, we will no longer have a USA because it will become a Muslim country. And that's all I have to say about that because you won't listen anyway.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

More words-sounds like Owhampy and Michelle again! The U. S. has hit the "Bottom" again. More tax and spin! Spin it anyway that you want it, you have to look at yourself every day, Good Luck! Hillary and Bill sold out? Owhampy is just another peanut Jimmy Carter! Have a good day and enjoy your "nuts"!

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, all us tax-and-spin DemocRATS have our Muslim prayer rugs ready and pointed at Mecca! We can't wait to blindly follow Billary and our Satan-appointed Muslim presidential candidate straight to Iran! We'll take your guns and force guys to marry one another!
* * *
Standard Republican talking points have never sounded so ridiculous as they do these days. One of the most enjoyable parts of Obama's victory will be watching the Republicans completely overhaul their playbook. To ordinary Americans, nothing speaks louder than the last eight years.

Posted by humorme (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I love this blog! I couldn't invent this stuff. Satan-appointed Muslim candidate! LOL that is good stuff!

The best part about reading the input of my neighbors is wondering who you all are and if you really buy this Sh** you are shoveling.

Some of you are so informed and at the same time so #%*&%#@ stupid! I love it. I love all of you. I love Natchez.

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Humorme, I think the funniest thing written on this page wasn't intended for comedic effect.

"Destiny" wrote this: "Why do most people keep referring to the past 8 yrs in such a negative way??? Am I alone in knowing that some good has come about during that time. I must be."

It's fine to be conservative/Republican/whatever, but even most of those folks wouldn't touch this argument with a ten-foot pole. Most real conservatives I know are embarrassed for what has happened on their watch and wondering when they'll have another chance at running things after this debacle.

Posted by humorme (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That is what is so great, I thought that WAS for comic effect! Either way it was funny.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@ djarum
The economy is being affected by the skyrocketing oil prices. One solution is to drill for oil in the United States. Unfortunately the democratic tree huggers will not allow this. Choosing to vote for a democrat is choosing to not take advantage of our own oil supplies.
I truly wish people would grasp the concept that if the Republican president does not have a Republican House and Senate, he ultimately has no control and his hands are tied. This is why people vote with their party.
Obama scares me to death and people will vote for him simply because he's black.
I wish we had a more conservative Republican candidate but we don'e. McCain has the experience to run this country, he's Republican, and he gets my vote.

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Your understanding of the global oil supply is right up there with your understanding of government, happybunny. Opening up ANWR is a short-term, ineffective political ploy, not a strategy.

Also, Bush enjoyed plenty of years with a Republican-controlled Congress.

To say that people will vote for Obama BECAUSE he's black is laughable. Some will, but overall it's a considerable disadvantage.

But thank you for more good humor! I'm sure humorme is pleased.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How can you possibly say it's a short term strategy? Reliance on foreign oil is our detriment.

I am not defending Bush, simply stating the obvious, as Repubilcans we do not have any other option other than McCain.

In the past month I have seen the Obama bumper stickers begin to crop up in Fayette and Port Gibson. Wonder why.

Oh and I am glad I can entertain you.

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, everyone's wondering how the Fayette and Port Gibson numbers are going to affect the general election. If what you're saying is that black people are voting for Obama because he's black (and that is certainly the code language you're using, which just comes off as slimy), well, for some that may be true. To say that's the only reason for most is both laughable and offensive.

ANWR wouldn't open up nearly enough oil to make a real dent in global energy policy over the long term. I think it's really funny for someone who votes straight-ticket Republican to actually have written that "reliance on foreign oil is our detriment," when your leaders vote against anything that encourages alternative energy sources, or even something simple like higher fuel economy standards.

So yes, you continue to entertain.

Posted by linenbreeze (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

freedom42 is right!
The USA is not like I have never know it to be & when "Barry" Obama gets in the White House we can forget about of future as a free nation.

Posted by destiny (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good morning everyone and A BIG THANK YOU Freedom. It's so hard for some people to see and understand the truth and whats right or wrong. Some do not or cannot see the danger America is in. I have talked to several active military personnel home from active duty overseas and they have the same thing to say. They are thoroughly disgusted that some Americans, living in a free society and enjoying the freedom they have, would be so against our president's decision. All that I have talked to say he was right in his decision and America should be backing him up instead of spewing the hatred they spew. They chose to go and serve. They were not called by the government, but by that still, silent voice, to go and help bring freedom and peace to a people who knew only chaos, slavery, butchery, violence and complete dominion to the sick mind who ruled over them. THEY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THAT, and every day now they wake up to a brighter day. I have deep pity for those families who will not have a loved one returning due to death, or the ones returning who are crippled or lamed from this horrible war. As the song goes, SOME GAVE SOME, SOME GAVE ALL. All were obedient to the call of duty. We should give willing to help the returnees and rest assured the one's never returning are now safe within God's arms. Jesus said "Blessed are those who give their life for another for they will be blessed by My Father, for there is no greater love." And of course there will be a great monetary debt to repay, even down to the great grandchildren, but this is as it always has been, new generations paying off the debts brought on by their ancestors. It's unavoidable since Americans are peace makers and peace keepers. I hope we all can keep this in mind when we start abusing our president who has difficult choices to make each and every day, and moreso when we go to the polls with the freedom to vote. Our freedom has never been free, it costs dearly and it is so fragile that it can be taken away from us in November....

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The more you write, the more you entertain. Carry on.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama's plan to make the world more energy efficient is ridiculous at best. How is the government going to police the energy consumption of the consumer, require that we all use chinese lightbulbs? The auto makers will make the cars more energy efficient, NOT the government.
Contractors, manufacturers, etc will be negatively impacted as the tree huggers make it increasingly more expensive and difficult to operate in the US forcing industry to relocate to Mexico.
What is wrong exactly with the oil industries making a profit? Last I checked, that's why you start a business. Who are we to determine which businesses should be more profitable? Give me a break!

Posted by overthehill60 (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

destiny
DON'T stop now, you are ahead, teach us something. We all know the hard life you have had and you deserve your opinions & to be spoken & heard & this is the time to do it
You are on a roll so keep the comments coming.

Some may agree some may not, but the important is your opinions are very interesting, maybe we can learn some things.

Posted by humorme (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Destiny, please don't stop! Quoting country songs and bible verses to make your point is at the same time proving someone elses point. Keep going, you are on a roll.

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Agreed. This will be the best thread in the whole wide world if Destiny explains how starting a war in Iraq, after being attacked by a small band of Saudis based in Afghanistan, saved our freedom.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You can lead a horse, in this case, a donkey, to water, but you can not make the "stupid" animal drink?

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please refer to humorme's comment about making your point while at the same time proving someone else's point, rushing.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh ye of little tact...because someone has an opinion that differs from yours does not make that person less intelligent. There is no need to be so sarcastic and critical of others in your posts.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rushing, I wouldn't have used the term donkey for these people. Maybe a** would be better.
And yes Sentas a lot of people will vote for Obama because they think he is black and their saviour. Many white people will vote for him because they believe in the guilt trip some have tried to lay on them for many years. I have no guilty feelings about slavery or the way blacks have been/are being treated. I know many people, some white, some black, some other - I treat them all the same in my personal dealings. If you deserve respect you get it, if you don't deserve it, you don't get any. Those people who lay around, do nothing, and don't try to make life better for themselves and their children get no respect from me. Obama would get more respect from me if I agreed with his policies - that is why I don't plan to vote for him. I too wish Condeleeza Rice would be chosen for VP, or Bobby Jindal. Either would be great. McCain is not my favorite of those who were running, but I believe he has the ability to run the country. Keep the faith people.

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is getting more entertaining with every post.

Humorme, I hope you're following this.

I see that this is at the moment the most emailed story of the day. Let's hope people all over the area are seeing Natchez in all its unreconstructed glory.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree Condoleeza Rice would make a very good choice for McCain's running mate. I don't feel Obama has the experience necessary to run the country but he's got an elitest attitude and in no way understands the needs of the people, particularly us rednecks in BF Mississippi that love our guns and our religion.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I see that this is at the moment the most emailed story of the day. Let's hope people all over the area are seeing Natchez in all its unreconstructed glory."

As I said before...if you don't like it leave. We'll get along just fine without you.

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Funny how a guy who came from nothing and just finished paying off his college loans is suddenly tagged as an elitist, while the guy who married a multimillionaire beer heiress is "jes' folks." Don't get me wrong - I, like many Democrats, actually like McCain. He seems like a good guy, really, and one who I'll never vote for but will happily listen to when he's on TV.

We don't have to tear one another down to stand by our convictions.

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the problem with Natchez is that so many people seem to be, um, leaving it.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree wholeheartedly, isn't that what I have been saying. Opinions are like noses, everyone has one.

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

...then you may do well not to encourage people to leave it so quickly. You don't know who I am or what I do. But you should know that I'm not so likely to take your advice - on any topic.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People are leaving Natchez because there is not a lot of opportunity to work.
You don't know me either or what I do. I am an executive level proffessional who has to commute out of town to have a good job. There is not a lot of opportunity in my chosen profession in Natchez.

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Humorme, please come back - it's getting better.

Did you know there's executive-level proffessionals up in this thang?

Even bankers who came all the way back to Natchez... only to drive out of town for work! Don't that beat all.

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hereby call that Foxworthy's Logic. I love it.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"We don't have to tear one another down to stand by our convictions."

Apparently you cannot take your own advice either. What do you do for a living besides belittling others because you disagree with their views?

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess I'll have to strike that up to Foxworthy's Logic, my executive-level proffessional friend.

See ya at the Natchez Market.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sentas...I notice that neither you nor humorme nor dajrum_black have had any positive pragmatic ideas for improving things in the US or the world at large...it's all been sarcasm, cynicism, putdowns, Bush-bashing, etc.

Yet you urge people to vote for a candidate who has no experience in either foreign or domestic affairs, who is challenged from an integrity standpoint, hasn't done anything as a senator, and who, as you stated, only just paid off his student loans...hmm, what took him so long?

You would choose this man, Obama, over a proven hero, experienced and accomplished senator, and leader that is not afraid to go his own way even if it diverges from that of his party or the current president?...you Democrats like nothing so much as proving yourselves to be smarter than the rest of us...doesn't seem so very smart to me...but then what do I know?, I'm not an incredibly intelligent Democrat like you are...LOL.

Even as intelligent as you Democrats proclaim yourselves to be, I find that your own knowledge of government, economics and of global oil supply have yet to be put in evidence in this venue. ANWR isn't the only ball in play in the global energy game and Democrats have done far more to hinder energy production than to help it. Has anyone here wondered why the economy took a downturn only after the Democrats came to power in the Congress?

If you would care to get into a point by point, topic by topic debate on the issues that face us, fine I'll be glad to oblige, but I doubt you're really capable of much more than the sophomoric commentary you've shown so far.

BTW, the funniest thing said here so far was when Djarum said "Bag of grated cheese? from 7.00 to over 9.00"...Djarum could save some money and energy...GRATE THE CHEESE YOURSELF!

Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Come November, the new theme song will be...Moving on up to the east side, to that deluxe apartment in DC...moving on up, to the eastside...we finally got a peice of the pie!

Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ummm, sammy, being a prisoner of war doesn't exactly qualify one to be leader in chief. A vote for McCain is a vote for more war...Iran.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ummm, Peacy, the name is Sam...you forget he himself was a captain when shot down and he grew up in a military family with both a father and grandfather being admirals...even he was ONLY a POW, I'd say he would be far more qualified than Obama who never served a day in his life.

A vote for McCain is for completion of victory in Iraq and Afghanistan and avoidance of war with Iran by convincing the powers in Iran that it would be suicidal to do so.

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tell you what, Sambo Honey, I'll debate you on the issues you seem to know so much about once you answer my question above about why it made sense to attack Iraq after a bunch of Saudis based in Afghanistan attacked our country.

Ready... go.

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sentas, you must have been afraid of the debate. Debates do not start with insults so that makes me think you had no interest in a true exchange of ideas.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Birds of a feather fly together!"

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think I asked the first question here, and have every right to ask for an answer. It's a serious question.

Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

but, he wasn't sharp enough to escape, sammy.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sentas BABY...I'll break the reasons down into several categories having said first that I know you nor your ilk will ever agree they are or were valid reasons. It is also important to remember the reasons I state below were based on reasonable beliefs that certain realities were true at the time.

Some of those beliefs have since been found to be incorrect, but at the time were believed to be factual at the time by the UN, NATO, and most of the other allies and their intelligence agencies, but that does not invalidate the reasons. It also is not grounds to villify anyone honestly making decisions based on things they truly believed to be factual.

Domestic Security: It was believed at the time that Saddam did to some extent offer money and other aid to Al Queda. In addition, he sat on some of the world's largest reserves of oil. If we went into a war in Afghanistan we needed to ensure that the oil he controlled and that we bought was secure. It's pretty easy to figure that he would have denied us the oil hindering operations in Afghanistan.

Economic Security: Similar to the above, Saddam's oil and his ability to shut it off and his probability of doing so would hurt the US economy during war time.

Foreign Policy Strategy: It was well known at the time that Iran was actually the far bigger threat in the region, both to US interests and operations, but also to the other states in the reason. It wasn't hard to recognize that rather than fight them, it would be better to isolate them between our allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan to the east and Iraq (once Saddam was removed) and Turkey to the west.

Military Strategy and Tactics: Most of the US forces in the Gulf region are based in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates. Leaving a hostile Iraq in the form of Saddam, with the world's fourth largest army free to strike at these host countries while were busy in Afghanistan simply would have been foolish. He would also have been able to strike at American planes and ships enroute to the Afghanistan theatre. In a military action it is always wise to cover your flank.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

International Strategy: Taking Saddam out actually enforced the ultimatums issued by the UN that Saddam repeatedly ignored. It also made a big statement to others like him that if you're thinking about following Saddam's course you might be next.

WMD: All of the information of all of the allied intelligence agencies indicated that Saddam not only had, but was increasing his WMD capability. It has been proven since that although he did get rid of nuclear capabilities after the previous Gulf War, he consistently represented to the world that he still had them. It was also a known fact that he had chemical weapons because he used them against his own citizenry in the Kurdish north and the Shiite south.

Humanitarianism: Saddam was killing and torturing his own people. His regime was directly patterned after the Nazi regime and he was doing similar things to the people that they did. We went after him like we did Hitler and more recently Milosovich in Bosnia when he committed similar genocide.

Loose Ends: GHWB should have gotten Saddam the first time and far fewer people would have died in the meantime as a result. I think that GWB and many of those around him who had been a part of his father's administration felt a mistake had been made then and wanted to rectify it...they did so and I think rightly.

So there you are sentas...BABY, choke on it...because you and the Democrats couldn't and wouldn't have done better and most of you were in agreement when the decisions were made.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 9:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Peace007...I almost forgot that McCain was also commander of the largest fighter squadron in the Navy.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WOOHOO Sam! Go for it!
I don't know of very many POWs who did escape. Those prisons were pretty tight. And I do know several Navy pilots who were POW's.
And as far as his wife is concerned, she is not only the heiress, she runs the business. She and McCain however have a pre-nup agreement and have seperate accounts. Therefore no one can say he married her for her money. BTW did you know they have an adopted daughter from Bangladesh? She works with a group called "Halo Trust" in clearing land mines in war ravished countries, and works with another group providing dental care for children of 3rd world countries.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 10:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OGD...I put a shot over sentas' bow and when the smoke cleared he had disppeared...LOL.

Posted by bombingeight (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I realize that members of the Guns and God political party have problems with logic and rational thought, but let's take just a few examples: McCain was a lt. commander when shot down, and his squadron was of normal size. The Iraq war had little to do with anything related to our security. Iraq had not weaponized any delivery systems of the so-called WMD. In fact, commitment of forces to Iraq prohibited our capture or killing of bin Laden. Stories to the contrary were false and both were and are known to be false.

Posted by bombingeight (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Next, the energy requirements of the U.S. are far more senstive to CAFE standard improvements than ANWR drilling.

It is useful to rely on facts and numerical literacy even when rambling on about an editorial of the ND.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 10:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam- By now you know how the Liberals are? Good input! These "people" want something for nothing. They are all alike!

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

freedom42...not many POW's either escaped or survived...although McCain didn't escape (he was returned at the end of hostilities with all the other survivors) he did survive even though he was tortured...it's the reason he can't hold his arms any higher than the podium, they ripped his shoulders out of their sockets on many occasions.

They tried to bribe him to allow him to be set free early because he was an active admiral's son, but he refused to go without his men. His father, I might add, was offshore of Vietnam on an aircraft carrier, knew his son was in the Hanoi Hilton and still did his duty of ordering the bombing Hanoi. That is a family dedicated to duty, honor and country.

I did know of the financial arrangements regarding his wife and I also knew of his adopted daughter...I wasn't going to mention those until later, but it just reinforces the type of character this man, his wife and their adopted daughter have.

Then Wesley Clark wants to criticize him and his military record?...and Obama wants to disavow Clark's remarks?...give me a break, Obama knew, it wouldn't have happened if he unless he did know...it was old style cheap Chicago political dirty tricks at it's finest from the get go. McCain, on the other hand, has squashed any attempts by his supporters to sink to the same level, his integrity means more to him than the presidency...that is CHARACTER!

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And a man of Character is what the country needs. My remarks on the POW's escaping was to your friend Peace. I knew several exPOW's while my husband was in the Navy. Many remained in the service, despite physical and emotional scars left after Vietnam because they still loved and wanted to serve our country.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 10:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bombingeight...you're right on one count, McCain was a Lt. Commander when shot down.

To be more specific, McCain was commander of the largest ATTACK squadron in the Navy...there, does that make you feel better...I know how much you Dems put into "feelings". Bob Sheiffer wouldn't have said what he did if it wasn't pretty well researched.

The security of the world, the region, Iraq and the US were all directly affected by Saddam's actions. As for weaponization, he had and used Scud missles in the first Gulf War and had improved them increasing their range by the time of the second Gulf War. He may not have been able to deliver nuclear payloads, but he certainly had the capacity to deliver chemical and possibly biological payloads to any US military base in the region.

The fight against Saddam didn't hinder our capture of Bin Laden...Bin Laden wasn't captured because a tactical error of allowing Afghani's to capture him failed and allowed him to escape Tora Bora...we should have had more boots on the ground and sealed him off from Pakistan...we didn't have more troups on the ground, not because they were in Iraq, but because we were trying to do it by proxy...the manpower was available at the time...it just wasn't there.

And what the heck is that last sentence suppose to mean? That any story other than yours is false?...think again, my friend.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 11:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bombingeight...people go on about ANWR, but that's a drop in the bucket energywise that the US could and should do. Yes, drilling in ANWR should be allowed. Drilling offshore in California, Florida and Alabama should be allowed (particularly to keep the Chinese/Cuban efforts from stealing our oil). Drilling in North Dakota in the Bakken field should be allowed. Production of oil shale in Colorado should be allowed. Development of Canadian oil sands should be encouraged. C02 recovery in depleted oil fields shoud be encouraged. Synthetics produced from coal and bio mass should be increased. New refineries should be allowed. New nuclear power plants should be allowed. Ethanol production from corn, for the time being should be leveled off due to the affect it has had on food costs. Wind, solar and geothermal energy should be encouraged, but not at the expense of the other more immediate forms of relief. Perhaps the greatest technological advance should be pursued with all the vigor of reaching the moon, hydrogen fuel cell energy.

The reason these many resources haven't been developed? Militant, socialist environmentalist's who put more value on nature than on mankind, have hijacked the Democratic party...they seem to forget we humans are part of nature too...and right now, we are the endangered species.

Oh...I would add parenthetically that the Iraqi's, today, have announced that they are seeking to double their oil production by 2013 and have opened the development to outside companies bids for the first time since they nationalized the oil industry. That is democracy and capitalism in action! Would it have happened if we weren't there? NO. Does it mean things are getting better in Iraq? YES.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 12:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, it can only be a matter of time until we get a president like the one you predict who just decides to confiscate all the guns.

We have already had one that confiscated all the money and the people are pretty much okay with that.

Maybe the president you predict will give the people some gun substitute like the money substitute Roosevelt gave.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 12:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

EnK...surely you don't suggest we should have stuck with the gold standard and should have elected William Jennings Bryan as president...LOL.

As you are well aware, the gold standard's death knell actually occurred during the War of Southern Aggression (just a joke, folks) in order for Abraham Lincoln to deficit spend in order to finance the war.

Wilson and Great Britain did the same in WWI and FDR followed suit to end the depression and finance WWII...without getting into a major economics discussion, the upside of paper "fiat" currency the world's economy would have stifled years ago and deficit spending enabling the winning of both World Wars wouldn't have been possible on a gold or silver standard...of course, the downside is that "commodity" and "representative" money are far more stable, but also limited...pick your poison.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 1:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In the days of the gold and silver currency in the US, growth was 11%. Now we call 3 or 4% good growth.

Gold and silver are portable land. They allow everyone to be a landholder, large or small.

Wilson was led in his folly by Edward Mandell House, one of the greatest traitors this country has ever known and he also supported Roosevelt. Both Wilson and Roosevelt recanted their monetary actions, realizing they had given the country over to private parties.

From 1635 until 1913, the period of greatest growth in America, prices remained fairly stable. From 1913 to 1925 the country experienced a 100% inflation rate.

The beauty of non-deficit spending is that huge wars cannot be financed.

Borrowing, or stifling the economy as you call it, always has a day of reckoning. We see that day now.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 1:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Those damn banks have always involved deception Sam. The deal with the First Bank was supposed to be that the country would put up 20% and private investors 80%; after the country put up its 20% the investors issued credit to themselves on that 20% to come up with their 80%.

It has been the same story ever since, and for long before. This idea for the First Bank came from the Bank of England, long a thorn in the side of the English people.

Creating imaginary money allows the people running the system to buy up the whole world. The whole idea of this type of banking goes against laws of property.

Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 1:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I find it odd that so many good clear photos of McCain, as a prisoner of war, survived Vietnam, and are all over the internets, while not that many photos of the other prisoners of the Vietnam War seemed to have made it online. If I've failed to do the google correctly, please post a link.

But I did find this:

On October 27, 1967, four days after being shot down, McCain called for a North Vietnamese guard. He told the officer, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." -U.S. News and World Report, May 14, 1973 article written by former POW John McCain

McCain was taken to Gai Lam military hospital. (U.S. government documents) "Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I [McCain] did not cooperate. Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant." Page 193-194, Faith of My Fathers by John McCain

On Nov. 9, 1967, Hanoi press began quoting the seriously injured McCain giving specific military information.

One report dated read, "To a question of the correspondent, McCain answered: 'My assignment to the Oriskany, I told myself, was due to serious losses in pilots, which were sustained by this aircraft carrier (due to its raids on the North Vietnam territory - VNA) and which necessitated replacements.

"'From 10 to 12 pilots were transferred like me from the Forrestal to the Oriskany.

"'Before I was shot down, we had made several sorties. Altogether, I made about 23 flights over North Vietnam.'"

In that report, McCain was quoted describing the number of aircraft in his flight, information about rescue ships, and the order of which his attack was supposed to take place.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 1:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I propose, Sam, that both you and I read Blackstone's Law. I think that has to be read to understand these issues we try to discuss. From what I have been able to determine, it was this commentary that the early citizens of this country studied and debated.

I don't understand how you can be a conservative and not understand the evil of fiat money. There is nothing good about it.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 1:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here it is, the whole thing:

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackston...

His whole commentary. I'm getting started on it now. I challenge you to read it along with me. If you accept, when we get done I propose we do the Constitution next, up to the Bill of Rights.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 1:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Isn't modern life wonderful? If we lived in Colonial times we might have had to wait weeks for a copy of this thing.

Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 2:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh PULEASE, sammy, McCain met Cindy at a party and dumped his disabled wife to marry his new wealthy lover.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 3:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay, I got through the preface and part 1 of the introduction Sam. I bet you twenty dollars you can't get that far!

My money is in escrow with my lawyer....lol. Really. If I fail to pay you can sue me and collect it from that account.

Now, if you have looked for any of the other videos of Duany and his wife Elizabeth I wish to point out something to you. Notice how well they speak, how perfectly they form their words, how considered their responses. Notice how specifically they speak. This is true education. Most everyone can be educated this way, but it isn't happening.

Alexis de Tocqueville said this Commentary was responsible for the wide knowledge of law in America, even by residents of areas we consider in the popular opinion to be backwards today. What has happened?

Read this political discussion above. None of it is about primary principals. It is all about very childish things. How can we expect good government from this level of discourse? People intuitively recognize wrong on the part of this party or that party but cannot express the basis of that wrong. Both sides are right to some degree but cannot say, for the most part, exactly why they are right. it is because people are no longer schooled in traditional considerations of right and wrong.

I am not speaking of religous right and wrong; in the excellent part 1 of the Introduction Blackstone explains how the clergy attempted to subvert the common law of the laity which is the natural law of the people derived from custom. Now, because of the success of this endeavor the people are lost and wandering. Blackstone sought to correct this problem and for a brief period did revive understanding of the law with wonderful consequences for America. In a sense, we are living on the capital gained through that understanding though there is not much of it left. The time has come for another revival of understanding.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 3:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It was early in the 80's that I had my first encounter with any philosophical consideration of law. While doing volunteer work out in Navasota, Tx. I was part of a small crew of painters finishing a beutiful but ultimately failed building.

In painting, if one wishes to pursue perfection, it is necessary to have an extremely clean bucket of extremely clean water and an extremely clean cloth to correct the little errors that occur. I was the only painter with such a bucket and when another painter made use of my bucket I requested he desist as that was my bucket.

He, whose father was an oil and gas lawyer, said "What makes this your bucket?"

I answered, "I went and got it, that makes it mine"; my answer seemed right to me but I was not completely satisfied. Did my labor make that bucket my property?

Sensing my discomfort and having been to a good school where they taught such things as fencing he replied "But you didn't make the bucket, or the water".

He had me, and worse his beautiful Arabian wife witnessed the event, and the only way I could keep him out of my bucket was through aggression. I was much larger than he and there were no swords or foils around so in the end he had to go get his own bucket.

Still, I wished I'd had the ability to defeat him on the level of intellect.

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 6:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I see that while the rest of us were tending to real life, being with our families and such, Sam Mohon was diligently at work constructing a defense of the Iraq war cobbled together from various right-wing websites. That doesn't seem to me to be so much a "shot across the bow" as a hasty retreat marked by a soliloquy over your shoulder. But I hope you enjoyed yourself.

I'd also like to note that on this page, all the name-calling has come from a handful of old standbys here hurling names at "libruls." "A**," "people" in quotation marks, "animals"... if your wives and children matched up your usernames with your comments, they'd be appalled.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My husband and kids know my username. They occasionally give me their thoughts on the subjects at hand.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ahhhh... sentas, you are the only one being condescending on this site. Sam had some very strong points which you fail to respond to. Please I'd like to hear your response rather than your sarcasm. My husband also knows my username, I have nothing to hide.

And Peace, Wesley Clark has informed the world that McCains military record has nothing to do with his ability to be the commander in chief so get on your party wagon and get over it.

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I didn't realize this was the Harper Valley PTA. But I understand better now.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No clue what you could possibly mean by that.

Posted by fire39212 (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

happybunny sometimes when people want to make an argument but, have nothing to stand on they say things that makes no sence at all..Sentas would be an example of that...

happybunny you have made some GREAT points..

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think you all need to bone up on your country music knowledge.

Fire, "sence" is spelled S-E-N-S-E. Try some.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you fire, I think you are correct. Apparently the mother failed to teach the adage...if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing.
I don't listen to country music and have no plan to begin.

Posted by Incognito (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One question that I ask myself over and over is why do I even waste my time reading the NTZ Democrat editorial section. How do you utilze portions of a statement to formulate a conculsion?

Kevin, I really think you're capable of producing a higher qualty of editorial than what's displayed.

Posted by humorme (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course he is capable. But if he produces the type of editorials you are hoping for Incog. he wouldn't get near the response!

Posted by humorme (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I love the ND like I once loved pro wresling as a child.

Posted by triscuit (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Great bucket story Enkikur.

Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is it that after you've attempted to poison the American peoples' minds against Bill Clinton, because of his involvement with Monica Lewinsky (and not only him, his wife Hillary, for not divorcing him over his infidelity) that you now expect us to accept a womanizer (like John McCain), who became involved with his current wife while married to his disabled ex wife? According to the veterans against Mccain, not only did he begin an affair with his current wife while married to the disabled wife, he cheated on the ex regularly with many other women prior to becoming involved with the current spouse. And, after grumbling over Clinton for years, you now expect us to blindly, without question, allow this womanizer to lead our country on the basis that he was a prisoner of war and because his parent and grandparent were admirals in the military? He should never have even entertained the idea of running for office! The accomplishments of his parent and grandparent are not reason enough to vote for McCain; neither is the fact that he commanded a naval vessel (which wasn't during a stressful wartime), nor is the fact that he was a prisoner of war reason enough to believe him capable of leading this country.

So, what about the other prisoners of war who didn't have the photo op moments while being held prisoners, are their words against McCain not stellar, because they didn't have admiralty in their families? Why aren't you giving them the same benefit of the doubt, simply on the basis that they were also prisoners of war and investigate their charges of treason against McCain? Why aren't you giving those prisoners of war the same support you feel that we should blindly give McCain? Why would those other soldiers turn on a fellow prisoner of war without good reason? Being held as prisoners of war should have created a comraderie that couldn't be broken, unless those other prisoners feel that McCain gave up vital information which had not only helped him to receive better treatment while being held, but had also helped the other side win the war.

How do we know that McCain's injuries weren't a result of his bad piloting? There are no eye witness accounts from fellow prisoners that prove he was tortured while being held prisoner, as per what is written on the internets when googling McCain, and it is written that he crashed five times prior to being shot down in Vietnam.

Posted by humorme (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

YESSSSS! Mcain is a crappy pilot! Crappy pilot=Crappy president

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Westly Clark is a disgrace to the uniform-regular stool pigeon!

Posted by barbarj1 (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I AM OLD AND HAVE BEEN THROUGH A LOT OF CHANGE BUT WHEN I READ SOME OF THESE COMMENTS I WONDER WHAT HAS BECOME OF THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. I AM GLAD I WILL SOON JOIN MY FATHER IN HEAVEN. I KNOW SOMEONE WILL COMMENT THAT I SHOULD GO ON BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY SOME THINK, BUT JUST REMEMBER THE SIMLPIER WAY OF LIFE WHEN WE DIDN`T HAVE TO LOCK OUR DOORS AT NIGHT AND THERE WASN`T ANYTHING ABOUT DRUGS ON THE STREETS AND AIDS. ALSO REMEMBER THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE ABOUT THE ANTI-CHRIST. WE ALL NEED TO GET BACK TO READING OUR BIBLES AND PRAYING.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I know this is just a cut and paste from Wikkepedia, but I found it interesting:

In 2003, Carol McCain moved to a bungalow in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[1] She continues to have difficulty walking, as a result of her accident four decades earlier.[1] She supports her ex-husband's 2008 presidential campaign, and told The Mail on Sunday in June 2008 that she was not bitter and that, "He’s a good guy. We are still good friends. He is the best man for president."[1]

When McCain had his affairs, he was NOT President of the United States. They were not right, but sh++ happens in life and in marriages.

Posted by linenbreeze (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

fire39212
check you email.
Let me know if it works.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Crappy pilot=Crappy president" Wesley Clark has informed the world that McCains military record has nothing to do with his ability to be the commander in chief so get on your party wagon and get over it.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Peace- I actually like Clinton and thought he was a good President despite his shortcomings with Lewinski. What does his marital history have to do with his qualifications?

What is Obama bringing to the table politically? Can you tell me that or are you simply basing your decision on McCain's prior marriage and ability to fly a plane?

Posted by quietstorm (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The thought of an Obama presidency does not "scare sobeit to death." Sobeit is all, well and posting comments. So, what scares you to death specifically--just curious?

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?f...

Obama mentor identified as communist

Interesting

Posted by asandbb22 (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(freedome42)the fact that you used WIKIPEDIA(not Wikkepedia) as a source is a Hoot. I bet you even wrote that passage yourself, didnt you. You can go ahead an admit it, LOL!!

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

freedom does not have an e on the end of it assandbb22

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please excuse the last post. That brings me down to your level and I am sorry that I would appear that low.

Posted by commander (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam...keep the comments coming. I don't have the opportunity to comment as often as I would like, I do read most of the blogs. Yours are well thought out. Others are just a joke. We still think a lot a like, just like when we were classmates....Class of 76 !

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I enjoy sam's and enkikurs comments - both give me different information and points of view.

Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How dare you people bash our then president, Clinton, and then his wife for sticking by him, and waste millions of our tax dollars in an attempt to impeach him over infidelity and then turn right around and say it is ok for Bush and McCain to have done the very same deed while being married, since they weren't presidents at the time of their infidelity! Sometimes you people just take the cake.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have formed a new political theory. This is what i think happened.

The Democratic-Republican Party was infiltrated by the Federalists who then set about splitting the original party up into Democrats and Republicans to divide the people into two sects of the same belief. The Federalists run things in both parts of the split up party and their intention is to make the good Democratic-Republicans forget that our form of government is a Democratic Republic; the Federalist intent is to institute a pure democracy that slowly becomes more and more socialized while the Federalists and their cohorts in Britain operate a second capitalist economy with the aim of re-colonizing the rest of the world.

Democrats and Republicans shouldn't fght with one another. You should waterboard all persons running for public office to see if they confess to being Federalists.

This is probably why both Democrats and Republicans claim Jeffersonian ideas.

Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks, Peace. I was thinking the same. What's wrong for one is wrong for all. If Obama is being researched and analyze in the media, the same should done for McCain as well. I am not taking sides, but I believe that both of them should be questioned, if they are going to do things this way. The media is trying to "get through Obama's skin" by attacking his wife by using her college research paper. How long ago was that? That was unnecessary, and I ignored it. Here you have a man who built his current marriage on lies, and I don't see that in headlines. I guess, some things you can't control. I've already said too much.

Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur, have you ever thought being a history teacher?

Posted by destiny (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well...just like the old bad penny, I show up again. I'm sorry if I have hurt the feelings of some. That was not my intentions in any way. So I will offer an apology for it and beg forgiveness if I did. To you others, thanks for your support while I was gone. You have been true blogging buddies and have, so many days, made it worthwhile to get up in the morning and spend time with you. I truly enjoy having discussions with you even tho' we may not agree at times, you have been nice and polite enough to point out my errors and I have truly benefited from the experience of visiting with you every day. We have lost many good bloggers since I started and I really enjoyed they input, but they told me through their e-mails to me that they just did not have the time to read the negative input from some of the bloggers that insisted in being "school-yard bullies." Well friends, that's the way life is. We do have to put up with a few negatives to get the good positives. I have enjoyed all of the positives I've just read. Thanks for making my day once again, worthwhile.

Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Whooo! You had me going there for a minute, Destiny. I thought you were giving a goodbye post. We all say things sometimes that no one fully understands or agree to. That's what makes the world "spicy"..... so many recipes with many different flavors. Sometimes, I taste my own foot.

Posted by destiny (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PS. I'm sure our friend Kevin is holding his sides by now. Where are you Kevin???

Posted by destiny (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

drawpaintsing, not too many times have you had to taste that foot tho', you are one of the enjoyable ones. I can always take a bop from you, like the others, you do it nice.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

draw, my version of history isn't allowed in the public school system. in my dad's day they stiill taught the constitution but by the time I was in junior high in the late sixties the schools had quit doing that.

Suppose, draw, everyone read Blackstone's Law and became intimate with the Constitution? Suppose everyone developed a real understanding of the first principles beneath the foundation of our government?

Henry Ford said “It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

The reason people don't understand how our monetary and political systems work is because we are no longer familiar with laws of property and rights our Constituion was designed to protect. Until we regain this understanding we can expect continued class and race division and we can expect to be servants to those we elect to serve us.

Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur, I'm sure if we keep posting with you, we will eventually be familiar with all that you mentioned and everthing else. LOL!

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 6:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Commander...I'll drop you an email...I'd love to find out who you are. It's funny, in high school I didn't think that anyone thought like me...I always thought they thought like Billy M...LOL...it's nice to know the SPIRIT OF 76 is still alive, well mostly anyhow...Grin.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you care to read the last line of my post about his former wife, you would see that I said it is not right, nor is it ever right. But at least at the time he was not a leader of our country.
And I repeat again, it is Obamas policies, or lack thereof, that I cannot agree with.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Peace...I'd like to remind you that Clinton was not impeached for cheating on his wife with a young intern over whom he held authority...that moral and ethical infraction is far more heinous than two consenting adults committing adultery which is bad enough...Clinton was impeached for perjury, that is, he fibbed to a federal independent investigator while under oath...in our governmental system that's a BIG NO NO.

As for McCain, was what he did right?...no...was it understandable?...maybe...we don't know what was in his heart, in his first wife's heart or his current wife's heart...we don't know what mitigating circumstance there might have been...we did know what happened in Bill's case. Sometimes if you've been a scoundrel and learned that it is better not to be, it builds character, if you don't learn that lesson then you continue to be a scoundrel...McCain has a lot of character...Bill is still just a scoundrel.

Now for something different...you rail against McCain and his marital and military experiences quoting admittedly liberal websites as gospel, but you have yet to say what, if ANY, qualifications Obama has over and above McCain...you're sounding like Sentas who I notice has gone AWOL.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm glad I am not the only one to notice that Sam. I was beginning to get paranoid about it. I think the same of Obamayamamma and notfromnatchez sometimes.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnK...I may pick up a copy of Blackstone's Law...I'm in need of reading material...just finished Sir Basil H. Liddell Hart's history of WWII (third reading) and before that "A Grand Delusion" by Robert Mann.

I must admit to you that I may have been a little hard in critiquing you on writing here at length...I was trying to save others from soliloquys from either you or I, but after reading some of the commentary on OUR commentary, I may have been trying to be too considerate...LOL.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Soliloque all you guys want! It's cheaper than taking classes at Co-Lin! LOL

Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All I meant was to be fair about it.

Posted by sammohon (