Drew - thanks for keeping your watch of our tax dollars on a local level. Some of your editorials featuring federal fiascoes in other parts of the country, while indeed they use our tax dollars, aren't as pertinent as local boondoggles.
For instance, every time I drive by the city's new fitness complex, I get steamed. I pay for my own gym membership, why should I pay for some city employees? Write about that one, please. And if anyone gives you the argument it will save tax dollars in the long run by lowering health insurance premiums, please. . . Just implement market forces and base health insurance premiums on body mass index and smoking habits. That will ultimately lower insurance premiums.
Libertarian - traffic stops pull over every car going down a road. That's what I'm asking about. Not pulling someone over for speeding or smelling weed. You keep throwing out alternate scenarios to what's going on and what I'm asking about. If the government sets up a roadblock and stops every car, asks to see ID and looks around inside their car, is that acceptable to you? That's what is happening with these traffic stops. Is that okay or not?
Libertarian - stop keeping me in suspense. Do you have a problem with the government stopping citizens, checking their papers, and poking around in their cars - all with zero probable cause?
I realize that illegal immigration is the hot button topic that has everyone kneejerking on their keyboards, but I expected more reaction to the basic issue of government intrusion into individuals' lives, especially those among us who write a LOT of comments about the problems of big intrusive government.
Libertarian - reread my post. I'm not questioning your commitment to maintaining our immigration laws. As a libertarian, do you not have a problem with police stopping citizens, asking to see their ID, looking around in their cars, etc. without probable cause? Yes or no?
I'm not a libertarian and I have a problem with it. I was surprised to not read you weighing in against unwarranted police stops.
Woah - I fully expected the self-professed libertarian among us to have a HUGE problem with the police stopping civilians and checking their "papers" with no probable cause. Do traffic stops with no probable cause not bother anyone else?
We should certainly enforce our immigration laws and ship illegals back to where they came, but I have a problem with traffic stops. Police are just on fishing expeditions with these stops and shouldn't be detaining and questioning civilians without cause.
"We never should have sold the paper to those jerks from Arkansas"
Yes, you're right. I'm sure there's never in the history of the world been a frivolous lawsuit filed against a company from someone seeking $$. . . And I'm also sure there were never ever any lawsuits filed against the Times or the Free Press before 1998 when Mr. Hussman bought the papers.
There are two sides to every story and somewhere in the middle lies the truth. I applaud the newspaper for reporting this news about themselves. They could have chosen to not report it at all.
"The two parties are nothing more than opposite cheeks of the same butt."
Quote of the week, Sailorman.
I never would have thought Francis an optimist, but expecting Washington to be different after this election is Pollyannaism to a degree I've seldom witnessed. . .
Francis, it's not just the libs who have a problem with Palin. Here's an extract from the Free Press editorial from October 20, 2010 about her:
"Is Sarah just having fun, or is she testing the reaction to her “joke” with 2012 presidential aspirations?
Is it comedy or potential tragedy that our presidential race in 2012 could be Obama vs. Palin?
After all, we unfortunately have had several presidential contests in our history in which no candidate was really qualified."
To refresh everyone's memories, the Free Press editorials are the conservative ones on the right side of the paper every day on the op-ed pages.
Rolando - "Surprisingly, canaryinacoalmine very rarely initiated personal attacks, although he certainly responded to them. And he remembered those who continuously attacked him...and responded accordingly, sometimes making a preemptory attack."
I am the person who collected, analyzed and created a database of canary posts, remember?
I am sitting here slack jawed in amazement at your post, Rolando. Canary's nasty ambushes were not just directed at the usual suspects on the cartoon forum. Canary would viciously attack anyone posting on any story or letters to the editor on this website, for no good reason. I've never seen anything like it.
That collection of vile nastiness was literally nauseating to wade through. I posted that Canary's fondness for the word "Bub" was an acknowledgment of his lord, Beelzebub. I was only half-joking. I really and truly believe that Canary was doing Satan's work spreading hate on this planet.
If you honestly believe Canary very rarely initiated personal attacks, I am bewildered and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
By the way, Rolando - when you wrote "Are you now turning to the Liberal's Last Defence, personal attack?" were you conveniently forgetting about your non-liberal friend the Canary?
C'mon now - you can take issue with someone disagreeing with you without resorting to inflammatory sweeping generalities, can't you?