Comments by FrankLowe
Posted on February 16 at 6:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As an online reader of many newspapers, I find the Gazette's website very well structured and easy to navigate. Why change what's not broken?
Posted on February 15 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ChuckD, If their lifestyle is being subsidized in the form of Obamacare, food stamps, section 8, etc, etc, etc, then I don't need to "suggest", I'm stating a fact that they're not earning their keep. And if you're intelligent enough to read the opinion page and offer comment, then you know very well who pays for this. The government doesn't have money, the only way it can subsidize those who choose not to earn their keep, is to take from those who do choose to do so.
Posted on February 15 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ChuckD, who exactly pays for those who just don't feel like earning their keep?
Posted on January 25 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You rambled on, but failed to mention one of Hillary Clinton's accomplishments. I'll fill in the blanks for you.
At 27 years old, she was fired from her position as a Watergate investigator for being a liar, and unethical.
1978-1980 She was a governors wife, is that an accomplishment?
1978-1979 She made a profit of of about $100,000 on an investment of $6,300 in cattle futures on the advise of James Blair, then corporation council to Tyson Foods. Now that's an accomplishment, if you don't factor in insider trading laws that were broken.
1978-1994 The events of the Whitewater scandal and Madison Bank & Trust are far to detailed to list here. Her only accomplishment here is not being convicted of multiple felonies
1982-1992 She was a governors wife again. Same question as above.
1992-2000 She was the presidents wife. Is that an accomplishment?
1993 She presided over a secretive panel attempting an Obamacare style healthcare reform, which backfired, and even caused litigation. Considering the disaster that Obamacare has proven to be, is this an accomplishment?
2001-2009 Carpetbagging Junior Senator from NY. Missed 9.5% of roll call votes, far above the senate average of 2%. Of 337 bills introduced by her, only 2 became law, that's 2 over seven years. Describing her terms in the U.S. Senate as lackluster is still giving her far too much credit. Any accomplishments here?
2009-2012 Secretary of State. In the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, Hillary ran an ad saying " If the phone rings at 3am, who do you want to answer it. On her watch as SECSTATE, Chris Stevens called for help at 3am and no one answered. As a result 4 Americans included Ambassador Stevens were murdered. Hillary's response on Jan 23, 2013 to Chairman Johnson, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "What difference does it make"
Under her leadership of the State Dept, our relationship with Russia has soured, while Russia's relationship with rogue nations such as Iran and Syria has grown. China has flexed it's military might to the point where Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and other Southeast Asian countries are more than concerned for their safety and security. The jolly little pumpkin boy who rules North Korea is on the verge of a nuclear weapon, as is also Iran. Are these accomplishments?
As a side note, a persons last name should in no way qualify them for office. We don't need anymore Clintons, Bushes, Cuomos, Kennedys, or any of the other political dynasty families that exist today. It's time for new blood across the board.
Posted on January 19 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gazette reader, you failed to mention Iowa's average per pupil K-12 cost of $7,491.00 per year as opposed to New York's K-12 average per pupil cost of ...... are you ready for this... $19,076.00 per year which consequently is the highest in the country. National average is $10,560.00, with NY being the highest, and Utah being the lowest at $6212.00. Facts are still facts even if you choose to ignore them.
Can anyone explain why Iowa has the highest graduation rate in the nation at almost 1/3 the cost per pupil of New York? I can't wait to hear the lame excuses.
Posted on January 12 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Great piece Dan. I agree with every word
Posted on January 3 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr Reilly, Readily available data clearly dictates that restrictions on the ownership and/or possession of firearms not only does nothing to decrease firearm crime, but in some cases increases firearm related crime. There are many studies proving this, but of course these facts are ignored by the poliburo in Albany and the popular media. A most recent study by Quinnipiac University's Professor of economics Mark Guis states "Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level."
One also need look no further than Chicago, or Washington DC, first and second place respectively for gun related crime, as well as having the most repressive gun control in the country. On the other hand, our neighbors in Vermont have virtually no gun control, and the lowest crime rate in the country. In Vermont, anyone can legally purchase as many assault weapons, pistols, and high cap magazines as they wish.
Using a little common sense dispels all myths about gun control reducing crime.
Posted on January 2 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wmarincic, More often than not you and I are on the same page, but I have to respectfully disagree here.
1. The violence associated with drugs is due to the illegal drug trade, not drug use. Legalization of drugs will do wonders to curb violence in the inner cities.
2. I've witnessed many many violent and irrational acts brought on by alcohol consumption. I've never witnessed anyone whom I suspect has been smoking pot acting aggressive or violent.
3. It makes zero sense to spend money incarcerating those who smoke a joint, therefore wasting resources that could that could be used to combat dangerous criminals.
4. People are going to smoke pot, period. Laws aren't going to stop them. As much as I despise our tax structure, and as much as I feel that our tax dollars are wasted, Pot might as well be taxed like everything else.
BRoberts1, The chances of being injured by someone under the influence of pot are minuscule, compared to the chance of being injured by someone under the influence of alcohol.
Those who I know who smoke pot are definitely not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree, and I certainly don't think pot does any good, but there's no question that if alcohol is legal, pot certainly should be.
Posted on December 28 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Free money??????? So the money that federal government doles out comes out of thin air? On second thought, with Bernanke and Yellen at the helm of the fed, the money does come out of thin air....... for now
Posted on December 24 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am in whole hearted agreement with your column. Even with Judge Leon's ruling, we have a long long way go in restoring the forth amendment. With all due respect though, you correctly cite constitution here, but have ignored the constitution when commenting on the second amendment, what gives?