Comments by biwemple
Posted on December 30 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why? Why is this allowed? If you are kicked out of the military or a police\fire department after a conviction you lose your pension. That's one of the penalties for screwing up. At minimal his pension should be used to pay for his incarceration costs if he ever spends a day in prison.
Posted on December 24 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We should have a draft take effect sixty days after military action has begun by a president with no deferments. If we need to go to war we need to make sure that we go 'all in' so it better be a worthwhile reason. This constant multiple deployment of a tiny percentage of the eligible population is shameful. If you want to see a conflict end quickly, see how much political pressure is applied from the well-to-do if their adult children stand a chance at being drafted and deployed once the clock starts ticking. Even just the cost involved in starting a draft would make these politicians think twice. Good luck in ever getting that signed into law.
Posted on December 17 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This guy is worse than your common thug. Pure greed, amoral, and sociopathic behavior. Just a predator working on wall street instead of main street.
Posted on December 17 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is this current president going to start a police state right now or in near future? No. Are we under siege? No. But this action starts a precedent. What one administration does sets a precedent for future administrations (regardless of party affiliation) unless Congress and Supreme Court does it's job and checks the Executive Branch's overreach. Congress has abdicated its responsibility and is essentially rubber-stamping bills into law along party lines of whoever is in the majority. Our day-to-day government is run by a myriad of agencies that have little oversight until something outrageous occurs and hopefully our free press (the press that is not in lockstep with a particular party) exposes it. Just watch a little c-span and see how inept some of these Executive agency reps are while being questioned by Congress. It's either ineptitude, pure obfuscation, or outright contempt of Congress in these hearings. Either way, it is not good for an Executive agency like Homeland Security to have that much power over everyday citizens. It is not some dark fantasy by raving gun-nuts regardless of what's presented in media - that's a fringe element. They make a lot of noise and get people all roiled up, but its what's going on behind the curtain that should be of most concern. Constitutional scholars would have a real problem with this precedent. And I'll reiterate again, its not just about the Second Amendment, it's the whole collection. If you can undermine one amendment with such a backdoor maneuver you can undermine any of them.
Posted on December 17 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm neither a member of the GOP or the NRA but that is irrelevant. I did study Constitutional law in college quite extensively though and see right through the emotional rhetoric being spewed about over this gun issue and how easily people are manipulated into giving up their rights little by little for some false sense of security. If or when some Homeland Security agent puts your name on a no-fly list, you are NOT notified that your ability to travel this way is now restricted until you actually try it. You are basically flagged as a possible national security threat - very different than if you are accused of a crime and have some basic rights of the accused (that whole innocent until proven guilty thing we enjoy in this country and most of the world does not!). You don't have a Constitutional right to fly, but a policy used by Homeland Security (with little oversight by Congress) is trying to be used as a tool to limit people exercising a specific Constitutional right. My personal feeling is if you end up on this list you ought to be in custody and then at least that 'supposed threat' is removed and due process can occur to see if you really are a threat. If this no-fly tool can be used to limit one right without due process, what would prevent it or similar ones from being used to limit others? That is simple logic and our history is replete with all kinds of examples of our Executive branch and their agencies overstepping their bounds. Do I need to even bring up what the NSA was caught doing the last few years, or on a more local level your Miranda rights against self-incrimination which until mid 20th century never existed? Chuck, you think the world laughs at us, but I'll guess you haven't been to any third-world countries where people live in fear of their government or the police and dream of coming to the US where they can live without that fear. They might wonder why we can't seem to solve this gun issue, but they'd give anything to be here because of the rest of what the US has to offer regardless of it. I'd like to find a solution to this gun violence, but not by throwing our Constitution in the trash during the process. Using logic over name calling works wonders in arguments. Try it.
Posted on December 16 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If the author can tell me any other Constitutional right that can be taken away from a citizen without due process and they would need to petition the government to get it restored, I'd love to hear it. This no-fly\no-buy is a slippery slope toward a police state and it doesn't even have to apply to this gun ownership controversy. If a government agency can deny citizens a constitutional right because their name shows up on a list (even temporarily), what's to stop it from applying similar logic to deny other rights such as freedom of religion, speech, cruel\unusual punishment, freedom from unwarranted search, or even the right to vote? Would the author like to have her house searched, or be locked up, even for one night, if her name was put on a watch-list in error and she had to wait in jail until it was removed? I'm no conspiracy theorist, but give government a tool like that and it will surely end up being used for nefarious reasons. Those who value security over liberty deserve neither.
Posted on December 7 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just call a Christmas Tree a Christmas Tree, not a 'Holiday Tree'. I would not call a Menorah a 'Holiday Candelabra'. We can all have our holidays this season and refer to these symbols by their real names and everyone should still be OK. I think this PC movement has gone so far in trying to avoid offending anyone it's now offending most everyone.
Posted on November 23 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A forest full of dead trees is a fire and 'widow-maker' hazard and is pretty devoid of wildlife with no undergrowth to provide food. It might look pretty but its actually dead. Unless we are willing to let nature clean up by an occasional huge forest fire, which it did for the last few eons, until humans showed up, they have to be removed by man in a sensible manner. If critters can't find food in a dead forest they also end up in the suburbs eating your expensive shrubs and getting hit by cars every night. When you cut a few old growth & dead trees out every 20+ years, the forests stay very healthy, still provide plenty of shade, and younger trees get a chance to grow up to be large shade, food, and shelter producers. If cutting is done in winter, the damage to the ground in minimized when its frozen, its a lot easier to get these trees out and very few recreational users are going to be out in the woods until after mud season. There is a glut of timber in this area so money is probably not the real reason.
Posted on November 6 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
'Tax incentives to businesses' is code speak for transferring the cost of paying higher wages to middle-class taxpayers so corporations can get another break. Knew that was coming.
Posted on October 27 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I love my dog, but I would not bring her to an outside restaurant unless I had absolutely no other option. She's a Golden Retriever, who on a breezy day could send hair flying all around her. That might not be appealing to other patrons finding long blonde hairs in their meals, no matter how well behaved she might be on a patio cafe.