Report on the news that matters to your community and don't let us miss a beat. Send in your stories and photos.
My Recent Comments
Arizona Willie, you obviously missed my point regarding governments forcing individuals to give blood. Accuracy's statements regarding abortion implied that the government has a right to make a medical decision for an individual because of his belief that "every baby deserves a chance".
My entire point is that when we allow government to make these decisions, we open a can of worms. If we determine that the government should be making medical decisions for pregnant women, should we also allow the government to make other medical decisions.
If we allow the government to make the medical decisions for pregnant women, do we also allow the government to make other medical decisions also. After all, donating blood and donating organs after death are instrumental in saving lives. Yet we currently allow individuals to make their own decisions in these cases. My question is "do we instead allow the government to make these decisions for us and force us to give blood or organs in an effort to save life?"
I just find it interesting that individuals that constantly decry government intrusion are the same ones that advocate government intrusion when the actions (in this case, abortion) is something that they personally oppose. Part of the reason for these questions is to move individuals away from sloganeering and instead focusing on the hard choices that would need to be made to make their sloganeering come true.
3 months ago
I have a few questions regarding your post:
1. How do you decide that when the fetus is a baby? Is it a conception, at viability,at birth or somewhere in between?
2. If you believe it's at conception, is that belief based on a religious belief? If so, do you have the right to force others to follow your belief?
3. Since you don't allow exceptions, then you must believe that victims of rape and invent should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term, even against their will? You don't think that these women will feel victimized again?
4. What if the woman's life is endangered? Is it okay to allow a woman to be harmed or die for the sake of the baby?
5. Should government force individuals to donate blood to help save lives?3 months ago
This letter is a perfect example of just how crazy the far right have become. Once upon a time, being conservative meant that you were fiscally conservative and socially liberal. These days, it means that you're paranoid and think that everyone is trying to get one over. This is why I've lost respect for the far right. Unfortunately, the old school conservatives (that I would often agree with) have been forced underground.
Now, to answer your question about President Obama not having the public Inauguration on a Sunday. If you would have done a little research, you would have found six other Inauguration dates that fell on a Sunday (for Presidents Monroe, Taylor, Hayes, Wilson, Eisenhower, and Reagan. Each of these chose to have be sworn in privately on a Sunday, and then having the public event on the next day. So Obama is simply following the precedent made by past Presidents.4 months ago
This is again the far right wing trying to tell us to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". But, just like the great Wizard of Oz, their attempts are simply part of a tremendous fraud. They are simply giving their minions simple solutions that won't work, rather than focusing on the multiple issues that need to be addressed. Unless needed, I won't waste everyone's time laying out the problems with Horne's plan (it simply proves what a complete moron this man is). Instead, let's have an honest discussion regarding the issues that need to be addressed.
First, we need to talk about a society that embraces violence and too often sees violence as the means of first resort to resolve our problems. Look at our movies, our television shows, our video games, etc... We have allowed violence to become the entertainment for our society.
Second, we need to look at our mental health care system. We need to determine what is broken and what needs to be fixed. We need to see how medicating ourselves and our children to "make" them happy is have a dramatic effect on us. It seems as though we accept the propaganda of big pharma that we simply need to take a pill to be happy.
Finally, we need to closely examine gun culture. While we should never ban guns, we do need to find the balance between providing our rights to own guns with the needs of the society to protect itself. The perfect example is access to weapons with large clip capacity. The purpose of large clip capacity is not to protect yourself or for hunting. Instead it is designed and used for two purposes. First, it allows recreational shooters the ability to fire more shots between reloading. The second is for committing mass murder. We need to decide whether the rights of the recreational shooter outweigh the needs of society to protect itself.5 months ago
Linda, in your commentary you state"beware the kitchen knife". However,on the same day as Sandy Hook, a mentally I'll man entered a schoolroom in China with a knife and stabbed 22 children. The difference between the two is that no children died in China. Like it or not, easy access to guns make these situations worse.
Lack of reason, your comparison regarding funding is nonsense, it has never been one or the other. BTW, Solyndra was one of many small business loans to green businesses. The success rate for these loans is over 95%. Most banks would love that rate of successful.5 months ago
Venter #3 and one rebel, please let me remind you of three facts.
Fact #1: Examine the numbers to see who really takes money from the federal government. For the most part, "Blue" states tend to send more money to Washington than they receive back. "Red" states tend to take more money from Washington than they send. Like it or not, this shows that the "freeloaders" actually look more like you than you think.
Fact #2: People who tend to be more liberal are also more highly educated. Consequently, there is a direct relationship between overall education level and income level. This means that the same leftists that you are complaining about are probably earning more money than you and paying higher taxes.
Fact #3: If you really want to know who that "takers" really are, start by looking at corporations. Government giveaways to the corporations far exceed the amount of money that we spend on individual welfare programs. Also look at those individuals at the highest income levels. When, like Mitt Romney, they place their money in off-shore accounts, it is also taking money from the government.
In the end, the need for government assistance is not a "red" or "blue" issue. I know several people that vote Republican, yet have received food stamps, received help paying their medical bills through Medicare (their bills far exceeds the amount of money that they have put into Medicare), and have also received many other governments benefits. The perfect example was the old man at the Tea Party rally holding up the sign stating, "Keep your government hands off my medicare". What I see from the far right is " If I get help from the government, I've earned it. But if anyone else gets it, they're freeloaders, stealing my tax dollars!"
In the end, what I see from the right is a bunch of whiners and traitors. I am a moderate (which in your eyes makes me liberal) and I would never sign a petition asking to secede from the United States. To me, that is the ultimate sign of hatred for the nation.
In the end, we had a free election and your guys lost. Now it's time to get over it and actually work towards a compromise that works best for the United States. After all, the United States was built through compromise (if you study the history of the Constitution, you will find compromise throughout).
6 months ago
Interesting. This letter simply proves that many in the far-right don't really love democracy. Instead, they wish for a dictatorship that only puts their people in place. I guess its okay to override the wishes of both the majority and the Electoral College. Sorry, Mrs. Whipple, in my book, that makes you both unpatriotic and un-American. The fact is that President Obama won the election and will serve the next four years in office.
Leon: I know that talking to you is the equivalent of talking to a brick wall (although the brick wall may show more intelligence by keeping quiet), but let me point out a few things to you. 1)Gay people have always been around and they have always served in the military. 2)Sex scandals, such as adultery, is nothing new. Ben Franklin had an illegitimate son (which, in an act of nepotism, he had appointed as Royal Governor of New Jersey), Ike supposedly had an ongoing affair with Kay Summersby during WWII, and we are rife with sex scandals during our existence. Most of the pedophilia that is now coming out occurred decades ago, when the Presidency was filled by Reagan, Bush, and his son. Does that mean that the moral compass under these Presidents was also off. I won't even touch the bull hockey about the "foreign" born president. This has been been thoroughly disproved and only the really far-right crazies hold onto this belief.
As for God deserting the US, I am curious when you think that God was with us. Was it during the the first 90 years of our existence when a black slave was 3/5 human. How about during the War of 1840, when we attacked Mexico in a land grab. How about during the 1880's, when robber barons lived in opulent mansions, while many lived in squalid slums. How about the 1930's, during the Great Depression. Or maybe you mean the 1950's, when blacks had to ride on the back of the bus and use separate and unequal. In fact, these are just a few examples of the United States at its worst. The simple fact is that the US was founded and is still run by man. We are capable of greatest and also of the worst depravity imaginable. God has and has always had very little to do with it.6 months ago
It's funny that the same individuals who predicted a massive victory by Mitt Romney are now the ones complaining about the results of the election. To answer some of the posters here: First, to Leon, in 2000, George W. Bush was elected to the Presidency while losing the popular vote. But I remember Republicans stating that he had his mandate. Guess what, Obama won, get over it.
(In)Accuracy, I find it funny that the right would complain about character assassination and dirty tricks. After all, these are their own tactics. In fact, the fact that Leon still shows absolutely no respect for the President and still refers to him as a Kenyan, a socialist, etc... I guess that dirty politics are only OK when it's your candidate playing the game.
For those of you calling Obama a socialist, let us give you insight. Socialism is government taking ownership over the production and distribution of an industry. The only examples that the right uses is "Obamacare". Unfortunately for the right, this does not come close to being socialist, since it uses private care providers to produce and distribute the care. The only basic government involvement in this process is in setting terms and conditions for the contract, and paying the bills. The second attempt to paint Obama as a Socialist was the auto bailout. Again, the bailout allowed private industry to retain control. In fact, I challenge these individuals to name any industry that the government has taken production and distribution away from the private sector under President Obama. If you can't, then shut up the Socialist and Marxist name calling.
For those complaining about Obama's giveaways to get votes, you need to look at the facts. A simple comparison of how much money the citizens of each state pays in federal taxes versus what each state receives back in federal funds is quite interesting. If you look at each, you find that many states that went for Romney receive more money back from Washington than what they spend. In fact, these states include Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, West Virginia. Consequently, many states that actually send more money to Washington than they get in return include Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and California. It kind of blows that "Obama bought the election" thought.
6 months ago
This is one of the many problems with those of you in the far right. You had every opportunity to put up and vote for a candidate for President. Because your party chose poorly, now you cry that you want to secede from the government. As those in the far right said (for a lot less crying from the left) when Bush was re-elected, "your guy lost, now get over it".
By the way, are you willing to give up your right to Social Security, Medicare, pay the federal government for all the land (i.e. the Grand Canyon, Luke AFB, etc...) that you wish to take, incur the cost of creating your own armed forces and federal government, etc... My guess is that this is simply you blowing a lot of hot air again.6 months ago
Venter #1-First off, media have been "calling" elections for quite sometimes. It simply means that the facts show that one candidate will win. It does not mean that the election is over or that their predicted outcome will occur (just ask the Chigago Tribune, when they called the 1952 election for Dewey). However, in most instances they are correct, and, in fact, they were correct with their statements regarding this election.
Venter #4- Your guy lost. Get over it. By the way, if you think that President Obama is a socialist, I will give you two suggestions. First, quit listening to the right-wing "media" like Rush and Fox news. Most of these commentators have consistantly been shown to be biased and often incorrect in their "facts". Two, go to the library and check out a book on political systems. You will be astonished to find out what socialism actually means.
Mr. Conservative- I would also tell you to get off of the far right blogs. They are the only ones that are reporting this and they are misrepresenting the treaty and what Obama wants to do. The treaty in question (as reported in Rueters) attempts to stop the illicit sales to groups such as pirates, international terrorists, etc. As reported, the treaty does not affect any nation from conducting legitimate arms trading. Additionally, the treaty is only applicable to international arms trading. It does not affect the sales of domestic gun sales or infringe upon our Second Amendment rights. In fact, the Obama administration wants to continue these talks regarding the treaty to ensure and clarify this.
So you can continue to spew your lies regarding Obama (after all, the truth has never been an inhibition to the far-right) or you can start doing some independent research and think for yourself.6 months ago