Comments by WordWiz78
Posted on November 13 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm fine with protesters - but you can't exercise your rights by breaking the law. The curfew doesn't have a section where it says, "You have to be out by 11pm, unless you are protesting." It is closed at 11pm. PERIOD. You can protest all you want, but you still have to follow the law while doing it. If you don't, you get arrested, like anyone else would.
Posted on November 12 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don, I'm with you as far as the people who have quit their jobs to go protest. Whining about having no money after quitting your job to go whine about having no money is, at best, paradoxical.
However, I must disagree with your assertion that physical appearance speaks volumes about these people. First off, not all of them look like, as you put it, "the dregs of society." I know quite a few well-kempt and appropriately attired persons who have either protested in the movement or support it. Second, what would you expect them to be wearing for a protest, a suit and tie? Finally, since when does what a person looks like enable anyone to decipher the type of person they are? Ever hear the saying, "Don't judge a book by its cover"? Some of the brightest scholars in history wore rags and lived in squallor. In my line of work, I have met homeless people dressed in dirty, torn clothing who were more intelligent than a lot of the well-dressed "upper crust" I've met.
Before condemning an entire group of people for how they look, think how you would feel if you were judged solely by your appearance. Would it be a fair assessment? Or is there more to you than just your physical features and your attire? I hope you think enough of yourself to believe it is the latter.
I *do* support anyone who wishes to exercise their right to protest. That said, I believe the Occupy Movement is starting to get a bit out of hand. When we have people suggesting that, rather voting for a candidate, you write OWS on the write-in line (which isn't protesting, but just flaunting your ignorance of the democratic system), and flooding the post offices with an inane amount of bogus mail reading "Occupy the Mailroom" (which I will be extremely agitated if all this gratuitous garbage mail slows the actual, legitimate post - like my bills - down), the real protesters get lost in the shuffle. No one will take any legitimate protester seriously because of all the ridiculous stunts the other ones are pulling.
Posted on November 11 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
biwemple: how about not accusing me of trashing something without ever reading it - especially since I *have* actually read it. NOWHERE does it say anything about the prohibition of a Federal Reserve or of paper money. The omission of something from the Constitution does not make it unconstitutional. It doesn't say in the Constitution that you have the right to own a car, either - and yet, I don't see anyone trying to call my Buick unconstitutional.
RE: "And it's not definitely not saying that anyone can go print their own money" - I never said it did. That was in response to Mr. Suriano's claim of "'counterfeiting' laws that serve no purpose other than to ban the creation of private commodity currencies." Since counterfeiting laws are actually about preventing people (or organizations/groups) from flooding the economic market with fraudulently produced "money," I stand by my statement.
Mr. Suriano is certainly free to continue to believe that our Federal Reserve and our money are unconstitutional. And, I re-iterate, I would be more than happy to help relieve him of the burden of possessing something unconstitutional, if he'd like to give me all of his "unconstitutional" money.
Posted on November 11 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@ Ed Suriano. The Federal Reserve is unConstitutional? Um, okay. Feel free to give me all your unConstitutional money, then. Counterfeiting laws serve no purpose? You complain our money is worthless, but want to flood the economy with everyone making money - which would, as anyone with a high school degree could tell you - make it more worthless.
Posted on November 10 at 8:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Peggy...so wait...because people didn't graduate high school, or are unemployed, that means they are more likely to smoke? Isn't that kind of "dumbing down" the problem?
I know lots of people who are unemployed that don't smoke. I know lots of people without a higher education that don't smoke. I work with a lot of highly intelligent people who *do* smoke.
So, where does that leave your statistics - statistics for which I notice you fail to give a source? Are you saying only the unemployed and less educated people need help to quit smoking? Perhaps you believe that they aren't smart enough to know that smoking is unhealthy. I can tell you that's not true - I transport smokers to the hospital all the time, educated and uneducated, employed and not, and not one of them has ever said, "Gee, if only someone had taught me that smoking is bad!" They generally say quite the opposite, in fact - usually along the lines of, "Yeah, yeah, I know smoking's bad for me, and I'm trying to quit." Or, frequently, "I know it's bad for me, but it's my life."
I have never personally smoked, myself. I dislike being around people who are smoking, because of the secondhand smoke - not to say that I don't dislike the people themselves. It's hardly my place to tell someone they can't smoke, if it's not affecting me; it's legal, and I certainly have my own legal vises that are unhealthy for me. I am glad there is help available for people who want it. I simply don't understand why you found it necessary to segregate the smokers into separate categories. Doesn't smoking kill, regardless of how educated you are or whether or not you have a job? So, doesn't it follow that all smokers, regardless of education or employment, deserve the same offer of help? Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your apparent segregation, but I just think a more appropriate plea would be for helping all smokers, not just those mentioned.
Posted on November 9 at 7:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@ Nancy Fisher: I am not a fan of political signs - I personally think they are an eyesore, and I don't base my votes upon who has what signs, but rather what the issues are.
That being said, there is no reason for Ms. Frisbee to be taking down her opponent's signs, and the editorial in no way maligned her. She did it, she got caught on tape doing it, and the editorial points this fact out. That's not malignment. That's getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar. If you don't want to be embarrassed in the paper, don't break the law.
You yourself say you don't know the back story of the incident, so why are you so quick to excuse her behavior? At any rate, regardless of her reasons, she didn't have the right to take the sign herself. If her opponent was indeed in violation of a law, she should have gone to the appropriate authorities. Then they could remove it officially and then her opponent would have been the one exposed breaking the law, rather than her.
It doesn't matter what her reasoning was. The fact is that removing these signs, if they are not your property and you do not have legal authority to do so, is a form of vandalism, and it's against the law. Not only that, but it's childish. Rather than being an adult and confronting her opponent directly about it, she chose to be sneaky about it - albeit not very well, since she got caught.
I don't live in Duanesburg, so I can't comment on the good deeds she has done. I am a member of the EMS community, and I feel somewhat ashamed that a member of that community would resort to subterfuge to remove a political sign, and I certainly would never vote for someone I knew had done it. We need adults in office, not children.
Posted on November 8 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have to agree, robbump. My friend's girls cheer for All-Star Pirates, and they also do fundraising. I don't know what their goal is - though I am fairly certain it isn't $30k - and I know that they do travel for competitions. Anyway, point is, they fundraise, and although I would love to be able to support them every time, I financially cannot afford to do so. It doesn't mean that I don't support them; quite the opposite, in fact!
I think it's kind of callous to say that if someone didn't buy something from the fundraiser that they don't support the cheerleaders. Most of us simply prefer not to go hungry because we spent our last dollar on a sports team instead of groceries.
Posted on November 7 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
But, see, you're proving my point, tonijean, that political parties have run their course. Candidates should not be affiliated with anyone EXCEPT for the American people as a whole. Being part of a political party, as you correctly point out, carries with it a whole set of expectations from special interest groups.
Unfortunately, for the time being, we still have political parties - but are you really willing to say that if, between the two candidates, the Democratic candidate's plan would run us into the ground and the Republican's plan would turn around our economy, you would still vote for the person who would run us into the ground? (That's just a hypothetical, of course - the same question could hold true the other way around, as well). That's not productive.
Posted on November 7 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
cel01 - I don't profess to know a ton about cars, but I assume you mean your Nova got 30 mpg, not mph, in the winter and 35 mpg, again, not mph, the rest of the year, yes? Otherwise, that's a pretty sadly slow car if it couldn't get past 45 miles per hour going to Buffalo, rather than 45 miles per gallon. :-)
@ Linda Knightes: I agree that puppy mills need to be shut down, but I don't think the answer is to stop patronizing pet shops. After all, that's punishing the puppies sold at the pet shops, by never getting adopted by loving families. It's not their fault that they were sold from a puppy mill. I think the answer instead lies in better standards being set and enforced for puppy breeding places.
Posted on November 6 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@ Anita Paley - you're absolutely correct, and I'd like to also add that people need to vote for the person who will do the most to help the most people, whether that person is a member of "their" political party or not. The age of voting along party lines needs to end. Political parties need to end. No one running should be a Democrats OR Republican, they should be simply an AMERICAN. We aren't electing representatives to look out for only members of their party (or, we shouldn't be), but for all Americans. Time to put the juvenile playground bullying aside in politics and vote for someone who has no allegiance to special interest groups.
@ Walter Wouuk: What a horrible idea. Voting is how we attempt to elect into office the people who will best represent us. If you're going to turn it into a farce by writing in ridiculous statements, stay home. You aren't exercising your right to vote, anyway; you're merely showing people that you fail to understand the democratic process, and making yourself look like an idiot in the process.