Posted on September 27 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have to assume that Senator McCain, having been tortured as a POW, can speak on the subject of POW torture with more authority than either you or I. Neither of us are in a position to second guess him on this issue. I'm willing to defer to Sen. McCain on how to use it in the defense of our country and I would guess that Obama is smart enough to know he has no basis for an opinion either.

On Tortured debate

Posted on September 2 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Carl, You're darn tootin' I support Palin because she has done things in her life beyond political maneuvering, and mayor, governor, (and soccer mom) count too. I'll take a fisherman (or woman) to an orator (or journalist) any day I want to see something get done. My first choice for election this year was Mitt Romney, because he was a successful business manager and successful governor. He, like Palin, has had to face situations and make choices on courses of action when no good choices were available. In 45 years of working, much of it as a manager whose job and reputation were on the line every day, I gave preference in hiring to people who had worked at real jobs, and the dirtier and more dangerous the better, especially former military who had been in combat. Over the long run, that kind of people work out best when the going gets tough. Consider the more successful presidents of the past 50+ years. Harry Truman was a habidasher, albeit unsuccessful. Dwight Eisenhower, a general, Ronald Reagan, an actor, president of the actors' union, and a governor, George W. H. Bush, an oilman. On the other hand, Kennedy/Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton were professional politicians. Ok, I left out the peanut farmer - big deal. Obama's acceptance speech plucked every one of my strings - I could disagree with almost none of it. However, he has never shown he could get anything of material value accomplished.

On Guns & God

Posted on September 1 at 9:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Being for guns and God may be positive attributes to some prospective voters and to negative to others, but she appears to have an attribute that all can agree neither Obama nor Biden can claim: She has actually done some things in her life beyond speechifying and fuzzy feel good stuff. To wit: 1. She has worked on a fishing boat (it may not have been like those going after Alaskan king crab as shown on PBS), but I can say from limited experience, it ain't easy nor safe work. 2. She has managed a town as mayor (safer, but not easy at any level). 3. She has managed a state as governor, and from what has been reported, done a good and courageous job (which also wasn't easy considering the power of her adversaries). The only other current candidate who has ever been actively engaged in real work is John McCain (as an (unsuccessful) fighter pilot). BTW, the last president we've had with whom I could feel comfortable was also an unsuccessful fighter pilot (George W. Herbert Bush).

On Guns & God

Posted on July 17 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I was a bit put off by your satirizing the people who were attending the demolition derby. I've personally never been to a DD, but the people you were disparaging are also referred to as the "salt of the earth". These are the people who grow the food we eat, drive the trucks that move the things we need, build the structures that house us, pick up after us, and on and on. Those of us who consider casual attire to be a shirt open at the collar and a sport jacket, would be well advised to appreciate the efforts and lives of these people. Your attitude toward them smacks of "effete snobbishness" to borrow a term from the late and unlamented Spiro Agnew.

On Fair photos

Posted on July 5 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Carl, You've beaten this one to death. I agree with you that the government may have played some "dirty tricks" on what may have been gullible and simple men. However, gullible and simple or not, they did knowingly conspire to commit an act or acts that they believed were intended to enable killing for political or religious reasons. That is terrorism, or at least support for it. The sentences they received are perhaps severe, but clearly some punishment is appropriate.

On Appeal denied

Posted on June 27 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I welcome the clarification provided by the Supreme Court. Now that the right to keep and bear arms has been confirmed, within some not too unreasonable limitations, perhaps our legislatures will get past the idea of controlling guns by imposing limits on ownership or possession by law-abiding, responsible citizens, and begin to enact some reasonable gun laws that apply to the lawless and irresponsible. For starters, how about a law that imposes penalties for possessing a gun while committing a personal crime, e.g., robbery, assault, rape, attempted murder, etc., that are the same as actually having used the gun to commit murder. After all, possessing a gun while committing such acts is close to prima facie evidence of the willingness to commit murder. In the cases where the crime does not result in murder, it's clear that there is willingness to commit murder if necessary. The true crime is willingness to commit murder, whether murder results or not, and should incur the comparable penalties.

On The big gun decision

Posted on June 19 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From what I've heard said by a number of local school board members over the years, the breast beating and posturing of our state legislators might be a bit more convincing if they would attack the issue of unfunded state mandates imposed on the local school boards. This becomes evident when a school budget is defeated and a contingency budget must be adopted, which is within a few percent of the defeated budget.

On Tax cap

Posted on June 6 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Right on Carl. For my part, I will not base my vote on whether someone is half white, or for that matter, half black. Previous achievements, demonstrated ability and principles, and experience should be the issues on which we base our vote. The press has surely been trying to divert interest from those attributes.

On Black and white

Posted on April 30 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I didn't watch all of the interviews of Rev. Wrong on TV, but I didn't see any of the interviewers ask him if he had preached similarly in the past, when Obama might have been attending, or if the recent U-tube expose is the result of a new revelation. I (and we should all) be most interested if the good Rev. has been preaching this trash for long enough to make it evident that Obama as a parishioner and regular churchgoer has accepted it previously, and is only now repudiating the Rev. because it has become inconvenient to stay with him (and what was it that made his wife proud to be an American for the first time in her life). How inconvenient is the truth?

On Obama dumps pastor

Posted on April 14 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Carl, I got interrupted before I finished the previous thought. I wrote that "every person should have the right and responsibility to reject, refute, and repudiate everything that he/she has been taught by others about religion and then having been so cleansed from the errors (or perhaps truths) of others, decide for one's self what conceptualization of deity, or none, suits that individual. I should have gone on to write that: Having so done, refuse to infringe upon the same right and responsibility of anyone else, by keeping one's own convictions so derived entirely to one's self. Said another way: No person has the right nor responsibility to, in any way, determine or influence the relationship between any other person and that person's individual conceptualization of deity, or none.

On It's Bibleman!