Comments by ChuckD
Posted on October 20 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No, if it was like the other polls DG puts up, you're free to vote as many times as you like. Therefore a sham. Simple as that.
(not to mention it flies in the face of all other polls).
Posted on October 20 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is garbage journalism, Daily Gazette. Way beneath you.
Is it a DG product? Like your front page "poll"? Because it doesn't say who "we" are. If so, then it's a sham and does not belong in the news stream even if it had one of your "disclaimers". You should own up to it and pull it with a retraction.
Posted on October 19 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How could they not mention one of the greatest rock songs of all time, and my first foray into the phonograph world?
I submit The Royal Guardsmen:
Posted on October 17 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think most people have high respect for what cops have chosen to do.
I also think most people see that there's a systemic, cultural problem within law enforcement that shows as an abuse of authority and sense of entitlement. Too often cops only escalate situations when they should be doing the reverse.
I predict that as soon as cops show they all can work positively in communities and they're capable of policing themselves toward that end, they will see an overnight sea-change in the community attitude toward them.
It's not about rolling over for the bad actors. It's about winning hearts and minds (and understanding what that means).
There's a lot of that going on already but not nearly enough.
That's why the new chief's words above and even more, the words today of the president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police are so important:
"The president of America’s largest police organization on Monday issued a formal apology to the nation’s minority population 'for the actions of the past and the role that our profession has played in society’s historical mistreatment of communities of color.'"
Posted on October 17 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow Mr. Barney. You better be careful there. That high horse you're on may not be as healthy as you think it is. Just a little equestrian advice for you. You're welcome.
How about you stop with the arguments from ignorance?
The absence of any investigation into Mr. Trump most certainly does not absolve him of any misdeeds. In fact his statements of giving to numerous charities (Veterans, 9/11, etc.) without them being able to find any records of such, of promising to release his records 'when the audits are through' when that's proven to be a false reason, certainly point to him being less than truthful. So he should put up or shut up.
Posted on October 16 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm with you, 190ijeiefi.
And I'm going to go out in the yard and shoot a hole in my foot because that way I'll KNOW what's going to happen, rather than stay inside and risk ...who knows what?
Maybe my house will fall down! Or maybe I won't see that meteor headed for me? And what about cattle stampedes?
Posted on October 16 at 9:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Barney, how fortunate am I to have you offer a vocabulary lesson for me!
But as it happens, I've been modestly successful with the English language and my definition matches yours. Thanks anyway.
So where are the tax returns, since his excuse turns out to be BS (or if you will, obfuscation)?
Posted on October 16 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh please. Stop clouding the issue, djbarney.
At the risk of parroting a talking head, where are the tax returns? I call the obfuscation of his taxes evidence enough for suspicion.
Posted on October 16 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Please provide evidence Mr. Trump has followed the tax law. And his word on it, nor anyone's word, doesn't count. Actual records do.
Posted on October 15 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
“We value our partners, who are part owners of our company, and have a long history of being fair to them, both with pay and benefits,”
I wonder if Ms. D’Amelia could just as easily use the word "coworkers" instead of "partners". I think not. The tone of that statement betrays an Us and Them mentality; we are the suits and therefore important, they are the grunts who sell scratch-off tickets and scoop ice cream. "Partners", my a$$.
I have no other interest in Stewarts than their ice cream and non-ethanol gas (and employment of local workers), but I've also seen Stewarts' mindless, tone-deaf corporate behavior wreak havoc in neighborhoods in their own self-interest (many years ago in Clarksville and more recently in Altamont). If Stewarts can't muster up a little corporate introspection and ask themselves if they've really been good citizens, then bring on the lawsuits.