Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Assert power over tyranny at the ballot box

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, February 9, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 6:06 am, Thu Feb 9, 2012.

I'm not even Catholic but this is reprehensible. The Obama administration is ordering the Catholic Church to violate its constitutional rights and beliefs. This is the definition of tyranny.

Barack Obama has divided this nation more than at any time since the Civil War. What an indictment! The technique is as old as Karl Marx — class warfare. That is how Mao conquered China, Castro took over Cuba and how Chavez is destroying Venezuela. I am old enough to remember how liberals praised Che Guevara and how our State Department swooned over Robert Mugabe; and leftists today are using propaganda and innuendo to lure the unwitting to promote their cause.

Why can't good citizens see though this charade? Watch union leaders openly praise tyranny (China). Watch environmentalists falsify data to make their case (global warming). Watch race baiters stir up resentment.

Are you ready for Sharia Law, the banishment of Christianity and the destruction of limits on power contained in the Constitution? We are facing armed insurrection! It doesn't have to be that way. We have the power to remove tyrants though the ballot box. If only we have the wisdom to use that power.

Jerry Osgood

Galt

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

115 comments:

  • Patrick W Maple posted at 6:46 am on Mon, Feb 20, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    The vote was 7M to 6.4M. for Prop 8. 76% was the nation wide poll. I apologize.

     
  • Rick Houdack posted at 10:22 am on Sun, Feb 19, 2012.

    Rick Houdack Posts: 165

    Sorry, I meant to say 20% of the population voted for prop 8

     
  • Rick Houdack posted at 10:20 am on Sun, Feb 19, 2012.

    Rick Houdack Posts: 165

    I don't know if Maple is ignorant of the facts or if he is being intentionally misleading, but only 20% of California's voters voted for prop 8.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 1:14 pm on Fri, Feb 17, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    mrmm: your answer is an is-ought answer. What is fairness? What is a right? What is a spirit? Are you suggesting that we run this country on spirits? Whose spirit do you suggest...the majority or minority? These were partisan courts and legislatures... Not the people...76% of the voters in CALIFORNIA turned it down...period. Polls come and polls go...votes do not. The polls I read are still against it...so is BO your buddy.

    Separate but equal? Where have I heard that line before? I am not EQUAL to anyone except myself. Nor are you. Nor do I want to be the same as you. Nor can I be. Nor can you me. It may come as a surprise to you but a man cannot make a baby by himself or with another man...neither can a woman and a woman. Nor can the government legislate one into being or ajudicate one into being...it must have a man and a woman. It IS this way...no matter how much you/they think it OUGHT to be some other way. Be whom you are and stop trying to be me.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 9:02 pm on Thu, Feb 16, 2012.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Given that the courts on both the state and federal level have found marriage to be a right, it follows that the needless attempt to enact an obvious separate but equal policy regarding same sex relationships is a violation of the spirit of this right and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the courts. To say that a the people of a state must vote on it is to assert that human rights are decided by popular will.

    To play into this further and engage your hypothetical, how do you feel now that the country has undergone a significant change in public opinion regarding gay marriage to where the majority is actually on the affirmative by 2 points and steadily rising?

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 1:21 pm on Wed, Feb 15, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    No, just a ramdom question for anyone.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 10:57 am on Wed, Feb 15, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Pat, I think you wandered onto the wrong thread.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 9:46 am on Wed, Feb 15, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Here's a question: Has any state VOTED FOR gay marriage? OR has it only been legislated or adjudicated? If not then this is purely a political issue...not religious, not moral just personal preferences. It IS this way but you think it OUGHT to be different.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 6:30 am on Wed, Feb 15, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Chuckle....

    Brian, step away from the malt liquor!

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:02 am on Wed, Feb 15, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Brian,
    Attempting to discuss facts with most liberals is like talking to a three year-old. Most of the time they stick their fingers in their ears and go "Na, na, na, na…na" or in Ms. Bobin's case call you a bigot. Ignore their stupid insults and just clobber them with the facts. Remember, the true definition of a liberal is someone who's afraid to take their own side in a fight.

    Meanwhile...The 50 Appellete Court rulings still stand while Mr. Schmidt still believes that hijackers who hung out at a strip club in Florida, drank heavily, snorted cocaine and ate pork chops were devout radical Muslim terrorists...

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 11:51 am on Tue, Feb 14, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    mrssman seems to me to be a failed stand-up serial comedian in search of new lines. If only he could form a complete routine....

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 10:44 am on Tue, Feb 14, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1372

    Steve, FYI: angrou is a serial plagerist. Vey little of what he posts is original. Almost all of it is cut and pasted. Reference the following:

    "Never underestimate both the stupidity of liberals and their burning desire to show it."
    This phrase appears at:

    "http://www.libertyreborn.com/2011/08/23/more-liberal-stupidity-on-parade/"
    from:August 23, 2011 by J.J. Jackson

    It was probably in the form of some PDF

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 9:25 am on Tue, Feb 14, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    You know Brian, while I cannot claim to have read even a fraction of Andrew's posts (his writing is often flecked with rhetorical spittle and, when he gets really excited, he has an unfortunate tendency to lose control of his intellectual bladder) I am pretty sure that he believes that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by the very sort of political conservatives that you tend to support with dog like loyalty.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 8:41 am on Tue, Feb 14, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    I have been thinking that, perhaps, us regulars on these forums should start some sort of online charity to raise the money necessary to house Andrew in an institution where he can get the care that he so obviously and desperately needs.

    Does anyone have any expertise in this area?

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 8:40 am on Tue, Feb 14, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    If anyone other than the inmates happens to still be lurking around here, I had a very interesting conversation with a Quaker friend the other day that bears on this very subject.

    Quakers are opposed to all violence, even in self defense. Non violence has been one of the fundamental tenets of Quakerism for hundreds of years. With that in mind, my friend asserted that, if the Catholics are to be exempted from paying that portion of their health insurance that goes for contraception, Quakers ought to be exempted from paying that portion of their income taxes that goes to military spending.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 8:36 am on Tue, Feb 14, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Brian, I sometimes forget how very, very slow you are.

    When Andrew says that he is a 9/11 denier, that means that he does not believe that Islamic terrorists attacked the United States on 9/11.

    Even a man of your extremely limited abilities ought to be able to see that Andrew is stark raving mad.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 8:33 am on Tue, Feb 14, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Andrew, have you read the cases you are referencing?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:02 am on Tue, Feb 14, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Never underestimate both the stupidity of liberals and their burning desire to show it.

    In the future I'll try to dumb down the answer a bit so the willfully ignorant and mentally oblivious can comprehend it. I felt the answer of " Does fungus grow on logs?" was an obvious YES. Apparently I was mistaken.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:51 am on Tue, Feb 14, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Steve:

    I've known for a long time about the infiltration of Sharia Law into our courts system and society in the U.S. I believe you're reaching for excuses not to want to discuss it.
    The latest is Andrew and his supposed 911 denial. Why would that make any difference? Obviously he is aware of Radical Islam. I think this is just another one of your instances of being difficult.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 12:34 am on Tue, Feb 14, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Andrew, have you read the cases you are referencing?

     
  • Alex Kennedy posted at 9:36 pm on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Alex Posts: 215

    Andy,
    Yes, as Mr. Schmidt's log knows full well, fungus does indeed grow on logs :)
    Google it if you're in doubt

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:52 pm on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Does fungus grow on logs?

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 7:22 pm on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Andrew, have you read the cases you are referencing?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 6:33 pm on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    50 Appellete Court rulings in 23 states have now morphed into "wild assertions" LOL

    Never underestimate both the stupidity of liberals and their burning desire to show it.


     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 5:32 pm on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Brian, why do you think it is unreasonable to ask Andrew for legitimate evidence to support his wild assertions? I mean, the guy is a 9/11 denier so surely even you must have some serious questions about his credibility.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 4:22 pm on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Steve Schmidt at his finest. The Daily Rubbish.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 3:17 pm on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    On second thought, Frank is a pretty smart lizard. I've got this fungus growing on a log up at my ranch.....

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 3:15 pm on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Brian, you are out of my dog Molly's league. You might be competitive with my kid's iguana. His name is Frank.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 12:24 pm on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    I'm not holding out hope Alex isn't Steve.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 12:22 pm on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Just the denial of rights women have in Shariah courts should make one be concerned. Women cannot divorce their husband. Not only can men have many wives, they don't even need to file any legal documents to divorce them. In Saudi Arabia women don't get birth or death certificates nor are they buried in a marked grave. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 12:14 pm on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Put bluntly. In Steve's eyes, we couldn't possibly have the ability to comprehend Shariah Law like he does. He being the typical Liberal. This is how they think. Stand aside, Andrew, we're out of his league. :)

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 12:10 pm on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Andrew,

    I don't have any problem acknowledging Shariah in America.

    As for Steve, well, he has habit of being extremely difficult when he has been put on the spot. Look what he stoops down to call you in his recent posts. Only when it's convenient or he's able to discuss this matter with someone he FEELS has the ability to keep up with he and his superior brainpower to ascertain. Chuckle!!!!!!!

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:34 am on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Brian,
    I am familiar with how Shariah law has worked it's way into the American court system. I have been attempting to get Mr. Schmidt to acknowledge this fact since Saturday however he refuses to discuss any of the published Appellate legal cases. It's probably best not to refer him to any more websites. Denial offers comforts he finds appealing.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 10:47 am on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Alex, it has been a pleasure reading your posts here as well. It is always heartening to see someone else engaged in the long, hard and perhaps hopeless fight against ignorance, bigotry and whatever the heck it is that's wrong with Andrew.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 10:43 am on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Andrew, did you read the pdf that I posted? Did you see the part where I cite 155,321 Supreme Court Cases in which it was found that you are completely and utterly clueless? Wouldn't you agree that it completely refutes everything that you have ever posted on this site?

    How can you argue with it? Its a PDF!

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 9:41 am on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Jihadwatch.com is an essential site.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 9:39 am on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Andrew,

    Be more than happy to discuss it with you. Incidently, are you familiar with Robert Spencer or Frank Gaffney? They are experts on Shariah Law. And are familiar with how Shariah law has worked it's way into the court system in Dearborn, MI? The city has had so much money injected into it's economy by Islamic organizations (such as CAIR) with ties to terrorism it's created a huge element of fear for the remaining Non-Muslims there.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 9:20 am on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Ms. Bobin:

    If Sharia Law continues to be overlooked by people like you as a threat to America then we're in for a world of hurt.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 9:13 am on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Alex,
    Mr. Schmidt can hardly be considered witty. Dimwit perhaps. When I pointed out that the document was one that "THEY CREATED THEMSELVES" he insinuated that they had "tampered" with it.

    Shariah is distinctly different from other religious laws, like Jewish law and Catholic Canon, and distinctly different from other secular foreign laws. The fact is Shariah law HAS entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. I was hoping I might be able to get someone here to actually discuss the published Appellate legal cases that involved “conflict of law” issues between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law.

    Obviously my attempts are an exercise in futility. The only thing either of you want to discuss is a website and a PDF file.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 9:02 am on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Alex wrote:

    Nobody is forced to use sharia courts just like they are not forced to use Jewish courts.

    -That may be fine and dandy with you, Alex. But it just goes to show how ignorant you are of the stark contrasts between Shariah courts and Jewish courts, that being Shariah courts are the antithesis of Democracy and Jewish courts are mostly similar to
    Democracy.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:56 am on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Ms. Bobin wrote:

    Mr. Maple: Considering hardly anyone refutes my comments with the exception of Mr. Baumbach and yourself who only fight back with insults rather than rational arguments, your comments fall flat. And are most laughable.

    -The reality is, Ms. Bobin. Darrell has gone out of his way to be nice to you. And all you have done is continue to spit in his face. The vast majority of us here would prefer to avoid you like the plague. But there have been so many times we just have to respond. You choose to overlook whatever you give is what you get.

     
  • Alex Kennedy posted at 12:24 am on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.

    Alex Posts: 215

    The website provides a link to a document that THEY CREATED THEMSELVES. If a case appears in any Sharia court both parties agree to it, kind of like Jewish courts. They deal almost exclusively in domestic family issues as shown in your precious PDF. If they parties chose not to go the Sharia route they are free to settle disputes in secular courts. Nobody is forced to use sharia courts just like they are not forced to use Jewish courts. 

    As for Mr. Schmidt he probably just went to bed. It must be exhausting being so witty and he just needed to rest his clever brain:)

    Also here is the question mark that I should have included in my earlier post:  ?

    Now tell the punctuation police to get off my back.

    May you have a blessed week:)

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:47 pm on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Alex,
    Actually you said, "Cannon law is ok to impose on believers and non-believers alike, but Sharia Law SHOULD scare the bajesus out of us."

    If your statement was intended to be sarcastic shouldn't it have ended with a question mark?

    Anyway, As you can see I have been unable to get Mr. Schmidt to comment on the actual court cases. He is obsessed with the website that provides links to these court cases for some reason. Perhaps you might comment on them.

     
  • Alex Kennedy posted at 11:07 pm on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.

    Alex Posts: 215

    Andy, do you mind if I call you Andy?
    So I googled Center for Security Policy and 9 out of 10 sources describe them as Islamiphobic. The tenth was the CSP website which looked super Islamaphobic. Steve was right, your source lacks credibility. Also any monkey can create a PDF. It's like when you save a Word document. Instead of selecting to save as xxxxx.doc you click xxxxxx.PDF. Then you can upload it anywhere your little heart desires and hope people think it's more credible because it's in PDF rather than in document formatting.

     
  • Alex Kennedy posted at 10:40 pm on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.

    Alex Posts: 215

    Andy, I will never join any club that will accept the DB as a member. Also you took my quote way out of context. I said very sarcastically: canon law is ok to impose on believers and nonbelievers alike but sharia law is supposed to scare the bejesus out of us.

    It's called irony Andy

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:05 pm on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Alex,
    How does one say, "Sharia Law should scare the bajesus out of us" and then completely ignore 50 Appellate Court rulings confirming it?

    Perhaps you should join Mr. Baumbach's hypocrite club instead.

     
  • Alex Kennedy posted at 9:18 pm on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.

    Alex Posts: 215

    Ms. Bobin,
    We dismiss:)

     
  • Alex Kennedy posted at 9:10 pm on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.

    Alex Posts: 215

    You can't say vag ina lol

     
  • Alex Kennedy posted at 9:09 pm on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.

    Alex Posts: 215

    Pulledstraightfromsteveschmidtsass..I love you Steve. I kinda wana start a Steve Schmidt fan club. And it's not a gay thing, contrary to the pronouns used to reference me I have a lady parts (which for the record, I was born with:) but seriously dot what, the last part as was as cut off as Andy's research aptitude.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:47 pm on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Mr. Schmidt,
    The Center for Security Policy and Frank Gaffney are not the 50 Appellate Court judges nor have they ever issued any rulings. The 50 APPELLATE COURT JUDGES IN 23 DIFFERENT STATES ISSUED THE RULINGS! Why are you unable to grasp this simple concept?

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 6:05 pm on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    msb: 0-52-7...when you post anything debateable I will be more than happy to engage you...I have offered many subjects and defended many others...where have you been? You are like watch in the bubbles from a bubble machine (you remember Lawrence Welk don't you?). mrssman: Can you help your friend out here: "I think Pat is boxing a bit over his weight with predictable results." You are correct...I do not fight flyweights...which you apparently box at.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 5:52 pm on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    The following is a link to a PDF that I wrote which says that Frank Gaffney is a space alien, Sharriah Law is imaginary and that Andrew Leibich is the Queen of Sheba.

    www.pulledstraightfromsteveschmidtsbuttt.gov/queenofsheba.html

    There, that should settle this matter once and for all. Its in a PDF on the internet so it must be true!

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 5:49 pm on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    ANDY. EXACTLY!!!! GAFFNEY AND HIS MOONEY MASTERS WROTE THE PDF. THE PDF IS EXACTLY AS CREDIBLE AS THEY ARE, WHICH IS TO SAY, NOT AT ALL.

    YOU POSTING A MOONEY PDF IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME. GAFFNEY, THE MOONEYS AND THEIR CENTER FOR SECURITY BLAH, BLAH, BLAH ARE ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, WORTHLESS AS SOURCES.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 5:36 pm on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Ms. Bobin,
    Darrell did write, "JoAnne, your sense of reality is humorous... you refuse to debate all issues and put down everyone ... "

    You do realize that your last posted confirmed beyond any shadow of a doubt that what he said is true.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 5:33 pm on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Mr. Schmidt,
    Please do try to pay attention...FRANK GAFFNEY AND THE CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY WROTE THE PDF! How on earth can you say they "tampered" with it? IT'S THEIR PDF!

    Once again, FRANK GAFFNEY NOR THE CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY HAS ISSUED ANY OF THESE APPELLATE COURT RULINGS! APPELLATE COURT JUDGES HAVE! READ THE RULINGS! Your continued reluctance to read these 50 Appellete Court rulings does not negate their existence.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 4:28 pm on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Andy, you think Gaffney and his Mooney Masters haven't tampered with that PDF????

    What kind of conspiracy nut are you???

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 2:14 pm on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Baumbach wrote: "JoAnne, your sense of reality is humorous... you refuse to debate all issues and put down everyone ... "

    Apparently, Mr. Baumbach's inability to read 'ALL THE WORDS" is inhibiting his comprehension. Remember back in 2nd grade, when they gave those standardized tests? They had little paragraphs that the kiddies had to read and then answer questions related to the text? If one read ALL THE WORDS, one would get the answers right and get promoted to the next grade. If they only glanced over the paragraph, they were dumbfounded by the questions.

    I suspect Mr. Baumbach landed consistently in the latter category.

    Now, back to Mr. Osgood's letter which stated in his final paragraph:

    "Are you ready for Sharia Law, the banishment of Christianity and the destruction of limits on power contained in the Constitution? We are facing armed insurrection! It doesn't have to be that way. We have the power to remove tyrants though the ballot box."

    The issue here is, do we accept Mr. Osgood's improbable BS and make a reactionary decision at the ballot box because we believe Mr. Osgood to be one of the most forward-thinking visionaries of modern time? Or do we dismiss his ridiculous diatribe as the uninformed blather of one who only wishes to inflame his fellow "thinkers" and propel them toward the belief that the US is on the eve of destruction?

    Discuss...

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 10:06 am on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1372

    Oh look... a "635 page PDF file". If you would please post the entire "635 page PDF file" here, you could have the new record for number of lines of text. The current and all previous records also held by you and your enormous cut and paste jobs. Looking forward to it.

    Anyone want to start a pool on how many lines angrou's "635 page PDF file" will take up? 1000? 10.000? How long will it take just to load that monster every time someone wants to just read the previous posts here on this thread? The Sentinel will have to cut all their stories down to 17 words and eliminate the TV section.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 9:21 am on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Mr Schmidt,
    I provided a 635 page PDF file that evaluates 50 Appellate Court cases from 23 states. I can assure you that Frank Gaffney nor the Center for Security Policy issued any of these Appellate Court rulings.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 8:31 am on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Honestly, I can't wait to see who you will cite next. My money is on either Daffy Duck or Daniel Hutchins.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 6:29 am on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Andy, you provided me with the work of a paid propagandist in the employ of the Moonies.

    Even someone is your disassociated state ought to understand why that is unacceptable.

    I agree that you are baffled but your confusion is certainly not my responsibility.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:11 am on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Mr. Schmidt,
    I don't know what to tell you. I have already provided what you have requested. Your ignorance is baffling. Which ruling from which state would you like to see?

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 11:25 pm on Sat, Feb 11, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    How about you show me a single appellate court ruling and you show me specifically where it says that Sharia law is paramount over the US Constitution?

    Short of that, sit down, shut up and stick your thumb back in your mouth.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 11:23 pm on Sat, Feb 11, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Andy, you didn't post 50 appellate court rulings or even one appellate court ruling for that matter. You posted a link to a website run by a professional propagandist employed by a Mooney newspaper.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 11:17 pm on Sat, Feb 11, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Jerry Osgood wrote: "Watch union leaders openly praise tyranny (China). "

    Chuckle.... I missed this one the first time through. Around here, isn't it mainly Darrell who openly praises Chinese tyranny?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:11 pm on Sat, Feb 11, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Mr. Maple, 0-51-7

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:53 pm on Sat, Feb 11, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Mr. Schmidt,
    How does one conclude that 50 Appellate Court rulings are "preconceived assumptions" and not factual? 50 Appellate Court rulings are 50 Appellate Court rulings. All of which leads me, not for the first time, to wonder whether you do any sort of vetting of your comments before you post them.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:07 pm on Sat, Feb 11, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms bobin stated...who only fight back with insults rather than rational arguments

    JoAnne, your sense of reality is humorous... you refuse to debate all issues and put down everyone ...

    Very funny post... thanks for the laugh.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 2:53 pm on Sat, Feb 11, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    I think Pat is boxing a bit over his weight with predictable results.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 2:19 pm on Sat, Feb 11, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Maple: Considering hardly anyone refutes my comments with the exception of Mr. Baumbach and yourself who only fight back with insults rather than rational arguments, your comments fall flat. And are most laughable.

    But then, I consider the source.

    GO GALT UNIFIED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT!!

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 9:30 am on Sat, Feb 11, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    ms b: Bobbin is a good name for you...like a boxer you bob and weave, take shots here and there, throw a lot of unconnected punches (mostly you are knocked on your keester) and at best you walk away with a draw...most of the time you lose. 0-50-7 is your record. When will you EVER stand and fight...no constructive conflict is ever won by playing to tie.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 8:56 am on Sat, Feb 11, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Lil Larry is making his Great Leader sound like some sort of Messiah.

    I thought Repugs reserved that label for Barack.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 8:55 am on Sat, Feb 11, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    All of which leads me, not for the first time, to wonder whether you do any sort of vetting of your sources or if you simply accept as gospel anything that you find on the internet that supports your preconceived assumptions.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 8:52 am on Sat, Feb 11, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Andy, you do realize that the Center for Security Policy is a front for Frank Gaffney who is hardly a reputable (let alone factual) source.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:18 am on Sat, Feb 11, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Ms. Bobin,
    The facts are the facts: some judges ARE making decisions deferring to Sharia law even when those decisions conflict with Constitutional protections.

    http://shariahinamericancourts.com/

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 6:03 am on Sat, Feb 11, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Back in the early 90's, locally owned Omni Healthcare, whose majority owner was St. Joseph's Medical Center, did not have any restrictions on birth control coverage or coverage for sterilization procedures such as tubal ligations, vascectomies and hysterectomies. And I am sure that their board was well aware the coverage was offered in its plans. Of course, non of these medical procedures could be performed at SJMC.

    The hysteria and claims of anti-Catholic or anti-religious freedom are nothing more than politically motivated. All churches, including the Catholic church should get out of politics once and for all and concentrate on, especially in the case of the Catholic Church, policing their own priests properly and trying to figure out why Catholics in the US are leaving the Church in droves. I doubt very much that the current "Catholics Come Home" TV ad campaign will do much to alleviate the latter.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 5:50 am on Sat, Feb 11, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Baumbach wrote: "Sharia Law incorportates the 4th largest legal system in the world. ... "4th largest"
    it dominates a hugh percentage of the world's people who are forced to live under its rules and legal powers."

    So, you are saying that Sharia law is enforcable in US courts? The only references I've been able to find are the upholding of civil actions in which BOTH parties to a contract agreed that any disputes would be settled by Sharia law.

    Please give examples of any other cases that support your contention, Mr. Baumbach. I'd be interested in reading those.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:41 pm on Fri, Feb 10, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Again Steve.... Are you saying that cannon law is enforceable in American courts?...
    To ask why it is absurd is absurd...


    Sam... Yes, I was offering good thinking... November will be telling... Again, you are very motivating as well as energizing to defeat our dictator in chief. Thanks again!

     
  • Sam Heller posted at 8:34 pm on Fri, Feb 10, 2012.

    Sam Heller Posts: 176

    28 states currently require contraceptive coverage for women. Where was the outrage when this was passed? California included.

     
  • Sam Heller posted at 8:11 pm on Fri, Feb 10, 2012.

    Sam Heller Posts: 176

    Darrell, you are so welcome ! You think a church trying to bully women is going to win ? Good thinking there Darrell.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 7:47 pm on Fri, Feb 10, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Darrell wrote: "...and thank you for people like Sam Heller that has no clue how his enthusiasm to support your ill-advised policies will help to defeat Obama in November."

    Chuckle..... and you are going to do that by voting in the fellow who thought up the policy in the first place????

    Good thinking there Darrell.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 7:45 pm on Fri, Feb 10, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Darrell, why is it absurd. If one religion can impose its dictates on nonmembers in its employee, why can't another?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:20 pm on Fri, Feb 10, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Thank you Mr President ... you have done more to energize and mobilize people who you have declared war on that I for the first time can say... job well done... again... Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ...and thank you for people like Sam Heller that has no clue how his enthusiasm to support your ill-advised policies will help to defeat Obama in November. Thank you Sam!!!!!!!

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:13 pm on Fri, Feb 10, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Steve stated...Darrell, are you trying to claim that people have not been tortured and killed under Canon Law...

    Steve are you saying that cannon law is enforceable in American courts? Sharia Law is enforceable in courts as Sharia Law is the forth largest court enforceable legal system in the world.
    Comparing sharia law to cannon law is intellectually dishonest and absurd. Do you enjoy being the class clown?

     
  • Sam Heller posted at 5:25 pm on Fri, Feb 10, 2012.

    Sam Heller Posts: 176

    Thank you Mr President ! Problem solved. Women's rights to insurance covered contraceptives are intact and the religious entites who do not respect these rights are off the hook for paying. Well done President Obama !

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 4:07 pm on Fri, Feb 10, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Darrell, are you trying to claim that people have not been tortured and killed under Canon Law?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:55 pm on Fri, Feb 10, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Alex stated...Cannon law is ok to impose on believers and non-believers alike, but Sharia Law should scare the bajesus out of us.

    Spoken well from a person who has zero understanding of Sharia law

    Sharia Law incorportates the 4th largest legal system in the world. ... "4th largest"
    it dominates a hugh percentage of the world's people who are forced to live under its rules and legal powers.

    Canon Law is not enforcable in court... Gay people have been punished by hanging just for being gay which was enforced by Sharia Law.

    Alex, can you post any court cases in the last 100 years where canon law has resulting in gay people hanging by the neck until dead? Can you post cases where our American legal system has bowed to canon law and enforced it?

    Amazing

     
  • Alex Kennedy posted at 12:57 pm on Fri, Feb 10, 2012.

    Alex Posts: 215

    Good point Steve. Cannon law is ok to impose on believers and non-believers alike, but Sharia Law should scare the bajesus out of us.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:09 pm on Fri, Feb 10, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Consider this... According to the new DHS report the following are some of the beliefs and ideologies of American terrorists….

    -"inserting religion into the political sphere"

    -"those who seek to politicize religion"

    -"anti-abortion"

    -"anti-Catholic"

    All of the above are direct quotes from the report.

    http://start.umd.edu/start/publications/research_briefs/LaFree_Bersani_HotSpotsOfUSTerrorism.pdf

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 10:40 am on Fri, Feb 10, 2012.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1990

    "If the Catholic Church can impose its prejudices and superstitions on its non Catholic employees"

    Steve, you are missing something in your analysis. The Catholic Church run organizations are NOT imposing their "prejudices and superstitions" on anyone. No one has been fired for getting birth control from any of the Church run organizations. It was always an option for women to find an insurer that met their needs.

    Impose: 1.Force (something unwelcome or unfamiliar) to be accepted or put in place: "the decision was theirs and was not imposed on them".
    2.Forcibly put (a restriction) in place: "sanctions imposed".

    Now it looks like the discussion is moot since Obama made the political decision (why do I suspect he planned to from the beginning?) to have BC offerings be a supplement outside of the Church insurance. Which is all I was saying from the beginning. This allows the Church to maintain it's principle on BC while allowing women (still curious why men are discriminated against) to obtain the BC they want.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 9:08 am on Fri, Feb 10, 2012.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 543

    It's "obvious" to you, mr. Baumbach? Well it's no so obvious to the 98% of American Catholic women who do in fact use contraception.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 9:06 am on Fri, Feb 10, 2012.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 543

    I agree, i think andy came up with a key question, a litmus test, if you will.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 9:03 am on Fri, Feb 10, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Ultimately, it comes down to this. If the Catholic Church can impose its prejudices and superstitions on its non Catholic employees, what is to stop Muslim employers from imposing Sharia Law on their non Muslim employees?

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 7:50 am on Fri, Feb 10, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Andy Crowder wrote: Should we allow JW employers to deny coverage for emergency blood transfusions for their non JW employees?

    I think this is the key question and the one that will not receive an honest answer. Where are the limits? What about fundamentalist Muslim business owners who don't believe that women should be confined to the house? Can they open a hospital and refuse to hire female doctors?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:13 am on Fri, Feb 10, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Andy stated...Sounds like begging your case to me.


    Of course, to someone with Andy.s level of bigotry toward's Catholic's, it might appear that way. A Catholic however would think very differently.

     
  • Andy Crowder posted at 8:44 pm on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.

    Andy Crowder Posts: 245

    Kevin, your protestations are an excuse to avoid addressing the issues. I can not find the thread where you tried to smooth everything over regarding life and death issues and birth control. You stated that it was all at the local level on a case by case basis and women needed to meet with the priest. Sounds like begging your case to me. But, the new take is even worse. Couples are so afraid of offending the Pope/Jesus that they don't even approach the church in the most dire situations. What would a non-Catholic employee of the institution do in this case?

    Please address the real issues. Families who are not even Catholic are being denied basic healthcare based on a book of ancient myths. Should we allow JW employers to deny coverage for emergency blood transfusions for their non JW employees? I could make a very long list of dangerous religious healthcare superstitions. How would emergency rooms keep track of all the exemptions that didn't even match up with the religion of the presenting patient? Or maybe it just makes sense to require a certain baseline standard of coverage for all. And then we can let the Catholics refuse BC and the JWs refuse transfusions and the Hindus refuse medications made with cow serum.

    The church has freedom to do as they wish when they limit it to their own members. When they step into the public square, they must play by secular rules. Do you really want other religions imposing their crazy superstitions on your family, jeopardizing the health of your loved ones?

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 7:44 pm on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    It seems strange to me that a self described libertarian would choose to participate in what is probably the most authoritarian of the Christian sects.

    Wouldn't, say Quakerism or Unitarianism be more in line with your philosophy?

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 7:16 pm on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1990

    Andy: Your EXTREME bias against the catholic Church is showing through. nowhere did I say the woman had to BEG for permission. Point of fact is when the priest discovered the difficulty the woman was having he sought her out and had to convince her it was okay.

    It is impossible to have a real discussion when such strong bias and hatred exists towards the Church from people who would rejoice to see it crumble.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:01 pm on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    If the Catholic Church (AND I AM CATHOLIC) does not like it they need to get out of the healthcare business.

    No Sam... it would be better to say, if you do not like the position and rights of the Catholic Church, you should get out of the church and stop being a Catholic.

    I am not a Catholic or religious and as an outside observer, it is obvious to me that Obama and his administration enthusiastically is at war with the Catholic church..

     
  • Sam Heller posted at 5:47 pm on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.

    Sam Heller Posts: 176

    Jerry, if you choose to be in the healthcare business you cannot discriminate against contraceptives. If the Catholic Church (AND I AM CATHOLIC) does not like it they need to get out of the healthcare business.

     
  • Alex Kennedy posted at 4:58 pm on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.

    Alex Posts: 215

    First of all crazy Jerry, I don't think you understand what a tyrant is because Obama does not have absolute power and the sheer fact we can vote him out negates your claim. Take a civics/history course before your next crazy rant. Second, Rick is right, you sound super deranged.
    Third, nobody is being forced to take birth control so I don't get how this violated any constitutional rights. Just  because a belief is part of your religion (peyote use by Native Americans, plural marriage and very underage brides by Mormons, Cannabis  use by Rastafarians, killing of adulterers by Jews, Christians and Muslims) does not mean our Constitution should protects it. We obviously have to have some limitations for the welfare of the entire population.    Fourth, it's conservatives who praise China because their lack of unions and business and environmental regulations make businesses easier to run and profit margins larger. Fifth, Sharia law and Christian banishment is just way over the top and nobody, not even you actually believe it. Take a chill pill or at least something to bring down your blood pressure.

     
  • Andy Crowder posted at 4:31 pm on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.

    Andy Crowder Posts: 245

    Kevin, your "solution" is simplistic and not workable for many, if not most families. A family that depends on employer sponsored group health insurance usually can not get the same coverage at an affordable rate on their own. If anyone in the family has a serious health issue, the cost of the outside coverage might be very expensive and not as comprehensive.

    Your arguments all skirt the central issue. The church can do what it wants when it is dealing with its own members. Once it is out in the public square, hiring the general public and doing business with the general public and possibly taking government funds (MediCare), it must follow secular rules. Your cruel story (on another thread) about married women having to beg permission of a priest if they can prevent a 7th or 8th pregnancy to save their sanity or even their life is draconian. Even if the priest says yes, the health insurance would not cover that. Anyone needing BC for other health issues can not get it in many Catholic hospitals and if they get it somewhere else, they pay out of pocket. Were you expecting non-Catholic couples to come beg a priest for BC????

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 3:40 pm on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1990

    Mike: Don't feel so superior with your party affiliation. Many Democrats STILL call Bush the same names they did for 8 years.

    The truth of the matter is that with the two waring political parties all they are doing is setting an example for the American people that bitterness, name calling and grudges are the way to get your point across.

    Look at how much garbage was spewed between Obama and Clinton when they were campaigning for the Democratic nomination. Now the rep are following suit. Every election cycle more and more bile is spewed by the TWO main parties. The only way to stop the cycle is to break their stranglehold on political offices of this great country.

    To continue an analogy that Steve so likes, we can no longer sit and let the Vorlons and Shadows rip us apart. We have to take back control of our country before their ideological war destroys it.

    you know IMHO

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 2:44 pm on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1372

    Jerry Osgood must have a lot of problems. And a lot of issues. Do sane people just sit around writing these over the top with anger letters to news papers? Thanks to Rick, we have a diagnosis :"Obama Derangement Syndrome" . Thanks Rick. I've been calling it "republican ...." . Well I haven't made up a name yet, but does encompass all the anger that the other side exhibits regarding how absolutely stupid the american electorate is for voting Obama into office. Now all they can do is call him the same names over and over and lecture us how we weren't informed. It comes down to they didn't have enough teams in place to throw the election their way. They wasted that on Al Gore.

    No amount of debate will ever satisfy their small minds. No proof will ever convince them. The best they can hope for is that more people lose their jobs and their houses and their health insurance. This is the only strategy they have. Really. Look at the oddballs they got who are trying (but won't succeed) in defeating Obama. I can only hope the tea baggers take over the GOP so that they will cease to even have a seat at the table.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 1:04 pm on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Steinberg... are you attempting to be a cartoon? Your posts make conservatives want to vote for anybody but Romney.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 11:29 am on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1490

    Lawrence I think Obama will make it very clear in the election that some of his better ideas came from Romney's advisers but will Romney want to make that clear as well. As far as Obama being out performed I think the numbers speak for themselves. Romney has yet to win the support of his own people that match Obama's approval rating. Maybe you can get Romney elected in 2016 but re-elected not a chance.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:48 am on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    A perfect example of why citizens can't see though this charade Mr. Osgood...

    "They no no comprehension skills" LOL

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 8:33 am on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1990

    The law passed was not aimed JUST at Catholic religious establishments. It was mandated for ALL religious establishments, excluding churches themselves.

    There is a very simple solution for anyone that wanted the BC coverage but worked for a establishment that did not offer it. Anyone can OPT OUT of their employer insurance and buy their own. I did this at two different places I worked. It was cheaper for me to do this as well since what the employer would have paid into my insurance came to me instead and I found a better deal.

    Just to be clear I would be in opposition if a religious establishment FIRED a person for having BC coverage, but I do not believe that in the 21 century America and all the options that we have before us, that religious freedom can be mandated against by the federal government.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:26 am on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Jerry Osgood stated...We have the power to remove tyrants though the ballot box. If only we have the wisdom to use that power.

    No Jerry, as evidenced by the comments on this tread, that wisdom is lacking. They no no comprehension skills even to begin to understand your letter.

    .Hyperbole much? No... only to Sheeple who perceive they can teach.
    Correct view is... "understatement" if anything... In reading your letter.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 8:02 am on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1490

    Jerry maybe if the right had the wisdom to find a canidate that could defeat Obama you wouldn't have to plead with people to vote against him.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 7:04 am on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Wow! I just assumed that the censorship software would edit out a really filthy word like "santorum".

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 6:29 am on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    That's what happens when you are swimming in the santorum.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 6:04 am on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 543

    Hyperbole much?

     
  • Rick Houdack posted at 5:38 am on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.

    Rick Houdack Posts: 165

    Osgood has a particularly pernicious case of Obama Derangement Syndrome. I had to read his hysterical screed a second time just to see if it was as insane as I thought it was.

    And it was.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 4:19 am on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2305

    Wow! A very angry letter from Mr Osgood. I can only imagine the disappointment he will feel when he learns that Mitt Romney enacted an almost identical policy as Governor of Massachusetts, years before Barack Obama became President.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 11 hours ago by Mike Adams.

Posted 11 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: Evolutionism is a hypothesis, n…

Evolution is a long-time process. Very, very long time. It isn't changing your hair color or learning to speak a different language. Eve…

More...

Posted 16 hours ago by Rick Houdack.

article: Letter: Surprised by water bill

The reservoirs are drained while all the water released from them is keeping the rivers lapping at the tops of the levees in the delta.

More...

Posted 16 hours ago by Brian Dockter.

article: Letter: Evolutionism is a hypothesis, n…

Mr. Fields, Has the thought ever crossed your mind that creationism and evolutionism walk hand in hand? It's rather quite simple. As thi…

More...

Posted 17 hours ago by Pete Wick.

article: Changes to law mean Lodi restaurant pat…

Enough with the attention to dogs! The Lodi Snooze is guilty of it and it only encourages dog owners to get their way. Can't dog people lea…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists