The Locally Owned Voice of the Capital Region

Comments by reader1

Previous | Page 3 of 25 | Next

Posted on September 7 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Debates, at least one, should be mandatory. This is just another glimpse into the character of our Governor.

From: Debates a needed part of process

Posted on August 29 at 6:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And the reason all the children didn't attend this was...?

This also makes me wonder if pre-school should be mandatory.

From: Some new Schenectady pupils get a head start

Posted on August 25 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Holder went there because of the unrest. Absent two weeks of chaos, he would have never gone down there. No one else seemed to have an answer re: how to solve the problem.

Chavez presents presents the typical conservative talking points - he wasn't a kid, he wasn't harmless (they said unharmed - not harmless), discredits the witnesses against Wilson while presenting the officer's version. The other side won't be happy unless the officer is arrested, convicted, and imprisoned.

This event says more about what people's views on race and politics are than it does about what actually happened on the day in question.

From: Linda Chavez: AG Holder fueling racial tensions

Posted on August 24 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I question whether the editorial writer "understands what's happening here" with respect to the investigation of this case. I think it would have been prudent to provide some proof to support the allegation that the deputy was unjustly suspended deputy due to "hypersensitivity" to an event occurring halfway across the country. I see no such evidence provided in this article.

Management is certainly not infallible, but, this article basically second guesses the decision of a manager, who certainly has more facts re: the situation, than the Gazette editorial board. And, they do it based on the thin premise that because there is a highly controversial use of force case in another part of the country, local law enforcement managers will rush to judgment.

The writer also seems to base their argument on the wrong headed premise that the choice is always between deadly force or taser.

From: Editorial: Reserve judgment in Taser case

Posted on August 14 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Probably has to do with political backing back home and future political ambitions.

No one is denying Israel's right to defend itself but this seems unnecessary. Many Palestinian women and children dead and the Governor feels the need to run over to demonstrate the US' support. I think US support is a given - this is not about about Cuomo looking out for the Israelis it's Cuomo looking out for Cuomo.

From: Cuomo offers 'total solidarity' for Israel

Posted on August 12 at 5:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dogs are an issue too. I've seen it first had and there is no excuse for it, especially when the Village provides the bags for free.

From: Scotia must address dog messes at park

Posted on August 11 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

RE: dogs in Scotia Park. First, it's the owner's responsibility to clean up after their dogs. Second, Scotia has, at least, two receptacles in the park and during this summer they have always been stocked with plenty of free bags.

From: Scotia must address dog messes at park

Posted on August 11 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe we wait until all the facts are in?

From: Killing of unarmed man draws criticism

Posted on August 7 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Too bad for the dogs. After the first attack they should have made foolproof precautions so the animals could not get out. Or, they should have placed them in an environment in which they were not a threat - (i.e., rural environment).

Some people have dog aggressive dogs - but, if that's what you have you better act accordingly.

From: Family surrenders dogs to Schenectady police

Posted on August 7 at 5:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

First you stated the details were changed because the Chief was upset because he did not have access to those earnings. Your words - "Some chief did not like the idea that the officers could make money and he could not" - go back reread what you wrote. Now, you are asserting that he it was related to the fact he was not in control. Which is it? It is not inconvenient fact for me - it is for your argument.

Surprising that you apparently prefer the former system in which officers managed the details and made the decisions on who worked them, as opposed to a seniority system. So, you complain about Chief a showing favoritism to "his boys" but a system in which officers could restrict the details to their "boys" is okay?

From: Confusion over Schenectady police pensions

Previous | Page 3 of 25 | Next

columnists & blogs

Log into

Forgot Password?