CARS HOMES JOBS

Comments by Newsworthy


Previous | Page 3 of 25 | Next

Posted on December 15 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bill Wragg, I agree with your idea of banning weapons of mass destruction, but why stop there? Look at how many people have been killed in Syria with "conventional" weapons. It's sad, but bullying is part of human nature; its' magnitude varies from the school yard to people like Hitler, the "Great Leader" of North Korea, President Assad of Syria and others. They will only stop being bullies when someone knocks them down and they will always seek greater means of power.
Similar to your description of how the nuclear bomb may have saved millions of lives in WWII, the MAD doctrine of the cold war (Mutual Assured Destruction) quite likely had the same result. It involved a lot of risk and new risks now face us in this area, as you pointed out. I don't advocate nuclear (or conventional) war, but history has repeatedly shown that we must be prepared to defend ourselves from those who use any means to achieve dominance for themselves.


From: Bomb was still best way to end WWII, but now should be banned


Posted on December 14 at 11:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

While the historical information is interesting, the point I see in the original letter by Arlene Shako is that the Schenectady parade was, for years, a Christmas parade held on Thanksgiving week end. Now, to (seemingly) accommodate downtown merchants, the parade has been moved to an earlier date. At the same time, it's been re-named a "holiday" parade to be politically correct and avoid offending any non-Chrisitians.

I don't think anyone has a right to be offended by it being a Christmas parade. Other religions can stage parades to celebrate their holidays. The real issues here are that Christians are being told to be quiet about their beliefs and that financial gain of a favored few is more important than tradition (there's a surprise!).

For years, we had a family tradition of going to the Schenectady Christmas parade. Now, we boycott the parade because it's been prostituted. It doesn't fit a rational model of social evolution. Freuliche Weinachten! (Merry Christmas, auf Deutsch).


From: Robotics competition got students pointed in the right direction


Posted on December 5 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here we go, again - another trip down that Egyptian river "denial".


From: Slowing population growth a vital step in saving the planet


Posted on December 3 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ronzo, I think a point can be made that, during the prosperous periods mentioned, the heavily-taxed wealthy people took advantage loopholes to retain their wealth. It's rather hard to believe that those people would willingly give up 90% of their income to the government.

The greatest concern to me is how personally all of you take these politics. It mirrors the dysfunction in Congress. Can't we have differing opinions without insulting each other?


From: Santa may be only way to get mailed package by Christmas


Posted on December 1 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee, please don't speak for everyone, when you claim that football symbolizes your soul. It is, indeed, boring - a bunch of grown men trying to knock each other down like bowling pins. They can only make one play at a time without stopping to figure out what to do next; when given a generous time allotment, they can't manage to finish on time.

I'm sure you (and others) are outraged by these descriptions, but in reality pro football (baseball, etc.) is not a sport - it's a business, and the "players" are highly paid entertainers. They don't get paid for "historic acts of sportsmanship", they get paid to WIN. When it's time to determine which teams go to the playoffs (big bucks), wins and losses are the only considerations - sportsmanship won't matter. Have you seen a trophy for "they didn't win, but they were great guys!"?


From: Letter on contraception and teens played fast and loose with the facts


Posted on November 5 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John Donohue raises an interesting point about reducing the Social Security retirement age to 50 (or less). This would vastly increase the number of recipients drawing benefits, while equally reducing the number of workers paying into the system. It would also ensure that Americans spend from 1/3 to 1/2 of their entire life in retirement. Now for the negative aspects - wait, that WAS the negative aspect.

John, that's an idea designed to solve your personal problem (which I share, BTW) but it is not a solution to any of our problems in the long term. Retirement age should be increasing, as our life expectancy is increasing. We have no reason to expect to supported by society for such an enormous part of our lives; that's laziness, irresponsible and self-centered. Besides, it would be boring.


From: No need to publicly disclose what went wrong in Libya


Posted on October 12 at 9:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Charles Blunt makes a good point. Voters need to stop making their selections based on political parties. The partisanship exhibited by Congress is reflected by voters, in many of these letters and in TV interviews. There is no moderation, no compromise - it's an attitude of "you're with me or against me, with no common ground".

As for Walter Wouk's comment about the attack on American civil liberties, let's remember that it was George Bush and the Republicans who came up with the so-called Patriot Act, giving the government the right to spy on citizens without warrants and detain suspects indefinitely, without counsel or communication with the outside world. Senator McCarthy would be proud and George Orwell would feel vindicated.


From: Skip political rhetoric, be honest about how to help our country


Posted on October 3 at 8:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree that term limits are in order for Congress. In fact, I would like a single term so none of them has to consider re-election. Another thought is to make each of their salaries equal to the average annual wage of their constituents. Removing the opportunities for wealth and power would discourage many from running for office - there wouldn't be anything in it for them! Yes, take that all the way down to the local level, even school boards.

The only way anything like this can happen is for voters to take action.


From: McDonald a man of principle and honor who deserved better


Posted on October 2 at 9:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I looked it up and didn't find any reference to Kenya and Obama. It really doesn't matter because the issue was resolved years ago (2008) and is just used as a distraction by people who can't think of a real issue.

Regarding Obama's means of paying for his education - who cares? Again, it's just an irrelevant distraction. Romney is wealthy, too; aren't you going to disqualify him automatically, on that basis?

Come on, poor people don't get to be president in the real world, and all candidates are politicians. Their primary concern is their own future, not ours.

I challenge every voter to make their choice based on which candidate will really be the best overall leader for this nation. Forget parties, forget single issues, just put your bias aside and select the best overall candidate. Anybody?


From: McDonald a man of principle and honor who deserved better


Posted on August 26 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Valerie, your claim of victory and the power of love and women merely shows your naivete. 600 women (or men, or both) did not cause the downfall of the USSR.

Nuclear weapons are terrible; yet, without those 2 infamous bombs over Japan, the war would could have dragged on for several years, costing even more lives. It also provided a shocking, real-life lesson of how terrible these weapons can be. Note that none have been used since, despite constant warfare around the globe. Nazi Germany and Russia were both feverishly working to develop nuclear weapons at the same time. If they had succeeded first, you wouldn't be free to write your editorial or express your religious views.

Would nuclear disarmament be wonderful? Hell, yes! You don't seem to realize that the U.S. eliminating all it's nukes will not cause Russia, China, Israel, North Korea or (soon) Iran to eliminate theirs. The harsh reality is that humans are competitive - in some, this becomes too strong and they will stop at nothing to win. Morality is an ugly word to such people. We can choose to disarm, tantamount to surrender to the "bully" nations, or we can choose to defend ourselves. The latter results in MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction), as noted in your column. It has also resulted in a world which has seen no further "world" wars or nuclear weapons used - and you have the freedom to write your column.

Life is not always happy and peaceful and will not be without some major human evolution; it simply can't be legislated nor demanded. Instead, we need to cherish the love we find, try to be at peace with our fellows and enjoy those moments.


From: Op-ed column: A nuclear choice


Previous | Page 3 of 25 | Next
 

columnists & blogs


Log into Dailygazette.com

Forgot Password?

Subscribe

Username:
Password: