I subscribe to the Wyatt Earp method of gun control... No guns... no exceptions.
This is just goofy! Perhaps the three teenagers should've availed the conceal carry law so they could've opened up on Dunn, therein averting tragedy. Yeah, that's the answer--let's arm everybody! God can sort it out later! My gun control reform is simple and easy to remember: No guns... no exceptions.
Listening to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony at 85db is one thing. Listening to a pulsating, machine-like, repetitious (dare I say boring) throb of bass guitar and drum machine, accompanied by an egocentric, self indulgent rap artist bemoaning the feckless perils of teenage angst at 85db, is something entirely different. Educators used to lend a modicum of cultural appreciation in our public schools--alas, it is no more. All too often, these days they simply supply drones to work the great machine.
Can you suggest a way to keep them out of territory that was once theirs? The Israelis, Slavs, and native American Indians would like to know.
Also, are we now equating foreign aid with wealth redistribution? Perhaps we should nuke Haiti? Are the churches and charities in on this vast conspiracy?
Might I suggest that since immigrants (legal or otherwise) come to this country for the expressed purpose of finding employment, it may not be surprising that they make up for 67% of employment growth. They are simply willing to accept jobs that many Americans will not. Also, while the President may be willing to accept some redistribution of the wealth (which I am entirely for), I've yet to hear anyone claim that he intends to send this wealth overseas. Could you provide a source please? Was it Rush or Sean? Also why would ANY president do this?
I would suggest that if we are to get anywhere in this conversation, we keep the issues of tobacco use and the deficiencies of our national healthcare policy separate. True, both issues are prescient and deserve considerable discussion, but to lump the two into one will result in a futile exercise of bumper-sticker palaver. I've smoked for 45 years. I've had a major stroke, two heart attacks, quadruple bypass... How much more incentive do I need to quit smoking? I still smoke. If I didn't know better, I'd say this stuff is addictive. I congratulate (and envy) those who have managed to quit, but not everyone is the same. I will die from smoking. Why do we continue to sell this stuff to the new generations?
What exactly is the goal of this organization? Is it to discourage tobacco use (a goal that I, as a smoker would fully endorse) or to generate revenue from primarily lower income resources? Almost ALL of the money from the Tobacco Settlement, originally intended for tobacco cessation programs and subsequent medical expenses due to tobacco use, were diverted by Republican weasels in the Missouri House for budget balancing and pet projects. They used to call that larceny. And now, "for the sake of the children," Ms. Snodgrass needs more. As far as "the children" are concerned, that solution is simple: If you were born AFTER 2000 (an easily remembered number), you may not purchase tobacco... EVER! No matter how old you get to be! Stores who sell to them will be closed... PERMANENTLY! The smoking rates cannot help but drop, as we smokers eventually kill ourselves off and society can devote its considerations to other timely matters... like weasel control.
As I must get up at 3AM every morning, I have yet to see the debate, and therefor have no opinion as to who won or lost, or more to the point, who lied and who did not. However, after reading the responses in this forum, I would suggest to all that we step back from our passions, as they seldom, if ever, resolve any issue. Accusations of "illegal, Muslim, Communist..." add nothing to the conversation. Furthermore, from what I have gleaned from a variety of mainstream news sources, government statistics, and even pundits, my presidential preference is resolved, as it is for most who have responded. Have faith that our system of "checks and balances" will survive regardless of who wins. Now stop arguing and vote.
In its ruling, the US Supreme Court has made the exercise of controlling campaign donations similar to that of holding water in your hand. We can do the court one better: remove all limits on contributions, while encouraging contributions with anonymity and even tax exemptions. Money coming into politics is not the problem. The problem lies with politicians and what they are willing to do to access those funds. Therein lies the point at which control is used. Imagine a political "superfund," made up from all contributions from all donors, regardless of their political leanings (the Koch brothers and the People For The American Way have their money in the same fund). Joe Republican wants ten dollars for TV advertising. A non-partisan controlling entity would allot the funds and see to it that his opponent, Joe Democrat, also received ten dollars. Problem solved.
Mitt Romney is a man I'd like to spill a beer on.
Last login: Saturday, December 22, 2012
© 2013 News Tribune Publishing.