Opinion: Obama shares strong message

Interesting that Bozo admonishes us to not over generalize, assuming that every poor person receiving an entitlement is lazy and/or shiftless, yet the very next comment by msezdsit then goes on to over generalize, assuming that those with wealth are greedy.

The problem is that you're both correct and you're both wrong. There are some wealthy who are greedy who could care less about the poor. And there are some wealthy who do care. There are some poor who are lazy and shiftless. There are some poor who are working very hard to better their lot in life.

May 24, 2013 at 8:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Opinion: Wayne Selden sizes up recruits

We've lost coaches Dooley and Manning in the past two years. Sure, I trust Self will replace them with quality people. Still, I'm nervous.

May 23, 2013 at 6:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Will of the people

That's a good question. I read your response and then had to sit back a couple of hours and think of a response. Like you, I always vote, though I must enjoy efforts in futility as I will vote for Democrats sometimes and Republicans never. Well, there was that one time when I voted against Vern Miller. In this forum I frequently urge people to explore third party candidates, but I'm not sure if by doing that, I'm not just encouraging people to join my futility or am I being successful in asking people to challenge conventional wisdom.

Frankly, I have mixed feelings about getting more and more people involved. I recall in my younger years telling someone I planned to vote for Gene McCarthy and that person thought I was voting for Joe McCarthy, he being dead for a number of years by that time. Do I really want people involved when they have chosen to be so uninformed. Yet I also complain when turnout is so very low. I'm very conflicted on that point.

How to get people not only involved, but informed as well? Well, I talk to friends and neighbors, customers at work, though that's always a dicey proposition, talking politics in the workplace. I think generally, there is little interest on their part.

I recall the protests during the Vietnam War. Where did all those people go? People were taking to the streets, throwing things, burning down the student union. I was there. I think people only get involved when it's in their own personal best interests to do so. I've said before, if you want to end wars of choice, implement a universal draft. If you want people to have a reason to vote, raise their taxes substantially. Give them a reason. Whenever I make these suggestions, I'm always in a very small minority.

As CSNY said, I teach my children. You got me stumped Doug. I just don't know.

May 23, 2013 at 5:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

City commissioner wants state to revoke nightclub's liquor license

Why would you suggest increasing patrols in an area around the bar, however that's defined, when it's clear that the problems originate at the bar? Common sense dictates that we differentiate between where the problems begin and the area that just happen to be nearby. And respond accordingly.

May 23, 2013 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

City commissioner wants state to revoke nightclub's liquor license

You define "rap" and "rough crowd" using the same standard as your earlier suggestion that the police "keep an eye on" the place. Completely arbitrary, no. Using some common sense, yes.

May 23, 2013 at 8:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Will of the people

Yes. Those that scream the loudest, seeking to protect their "right" to yell fire in a crowded theater are nuts. They are not protectors of our freedom of speech.

Those who would defend their "right" to sacrifice their first born child because God commands it are nuts as well. They are not protectors of our freedom of religion.

Every one of our rights have had reasonable limits placed upon them, for the good of society as a whole. As it should be.

May 23, 2013 at 8:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

City commissioner wants state to revoke nightclub's liquor license

I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it. (Justice Potter Stewart, paraphrase)

May 23, 2013 at 8:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Will of the people

All this "we need to do this, we need to that", you're asking from a group you admit has become cynical, apathetic, sitting in the bleachers. It seems the cynicism needs to end, before "this" can be done. The apathy needs to end before "that" can be done. Citizen Joe/Jane need to get out of the bleachers and onto the field before anything can be done. How do you propose getting them off their duffs and get them into the game? How do you propose getting them to care enough so that they'll want to get into the game?

May 23, 2013 at 7:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Opinion: Benghazi triggers a major credibility crisis

Be clear, not every way that the Senate chooses to define it's role is fine with me. I'm just saying it is what it is. Let me give an example of one of the most egregious examples, though this is the entire Congress, not just the Senate. The War Powers Act has the effect of Congress abdicating it's Constitutional responsibility of declaring war. I may not agree with it, but they've chosen to do it.

But we were talking about advise and consent. Do we interpret that broadly, or narrowly? That's for the Senate to decide. Earlier, I made the claim that with Presidential appointments, the Senate generally cedes to the President the right to appoint whomever they want, regardless of philosophy, unless there is some overriding reason to not do so. There are exceptions, Bork being one that comes to mind, but those are rare. I mentioned earlier the nominations of Justices Scalia and Ginsburg, two Supreme Court Justices with philosophies just about as far apart as one can imagine. Yet they were confirmed just seven years apart, by a Senate that probably had many of the same members. Scalia's vote was unanimous while the vote on Gingburg was 93-3. With votes like that by the same people, clearly, philosophy was put off to the side. What was considered was were they qualified. Once that was settled, they were confirmed. So advice and consent to them didn't mean philosophy, it meant qualified. Maybe that doesn't suit you, maybe you think advice and consent should mean something else. But in this case, I think it's clear that the Senate acted in a way that they thought was proper.

Supreme Court nominations have become spectacles. Lot's of questions before full committees. Nominations of under secretaries of commerce for Latin American affairs, or the hundreds like that, don't get the publicity nor the scrutiny that SC nominations do. They breeze through, I'm guessing, but probably without hearings before a full committee. Probably just a sub-committee and a background check by a staff lawyer. But the President does get to install his people, with few exceptions.

May 22, 2013 at 8:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Opinion: Amid crisis, Europe resists extremism

Is this really the direction you want to go. I made several points in my post. Would you like to discuss them? Fine. If picking nits is what you would like to do, I'll pass.

May 22, 2013 at 2:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )