Jump to content
the pilot should simply moderate the site, like the NY Times does. That paper gets thousands of posts every day from around the world, and yet the comment sections remain completely civil and, often, insightful--and yes, they allow competing/dissenting POVs, they just don't allow personal attacks, multiple posts on the same issue from the same person, and, of course, foul language. it's a better gage of community opinion, too, because one person can say something once and that's it--so the same 20 people don't monopolize a discussion rehashing the same garbage over and over.
brent, please explain why you don't simply go that route?
Powhownd, thanks for my morning laugh!
justathought: I had the opposite reaction. I am more offended by the soldier who was showed such disrespect for a significant religious text. That soldier is a representative of the American people, and he should be respectful of the Iraqi people and muslims in general, and trying to bridge cultural, religious and ethnic differences, not shooting them up. Do I get that war does terrible things to people? Sure. So maybe he needs to learn more appropriate ways to deal with those issues and feelings.
As for the desecration of the American flag, I would be more offended if it were done by a non citizen (as it is, often, around the world) than by a citizen. Americans who don't agree with the actions of their government should feel free to express those opinions, and sometimes that expression takes a symbolic form. There is nothing sacred about a flag, per se. (Yes, I thought the whole issue about Obama not wearing a flag pin was ridiculous.)
Of course, anyone who wishes to express such views should only do so with his or her own property--it is not Ok to steal someone else's flag and do anything to it (including fly it proudly).
freshair, you are being completely disingenuous, and it makes you look ridiculous. You did not refer to John Sidney McCain in your post above... why not? Because your purpose in refering to Barack Obama as B. Hussein Obama is indeed to highlight that middle name, Hussein. Whatever your reasons for doing that (and it's hard to imagine they're good ones), at least admit that's what you're doing.
If you agree that public education is a legitimate role of government, then it logically follows that health care is too. They each achieve the same end: An educated citizenry is a productive one--people develop new technologies, new businesses, and so on, and so create wealth for themselves and society as a whole. But how can people who are sick do that? They can't. Just as it serves our country overall to have well-educated citizens, who are raised to be intelligent, thoughtful, curious and productive, it benefits all of us to have healthy citizens who can go to work, support their families, nurture their children and contribute to the community overall. Preventive medicine is critical in this, but since you can't prevent ALL illness, we also need to take care of those among us who are sick. Personally, I think that's a moral obligation, but if you don't, make it a capitalist one. Either argument works.
delivery routes outside city limits? i'm with Ventrygirl, this PO needs to first start delivering mail to all homes inside city limits! sure, some people would still opt for PO boxes, but I bet the majority wouldn't, and that would have a HUGE impact on traffic.
I must jump at the rare chance to agree with sbvor! the Christie peak lift is a terrible design for exactly the reasons he (she?) says--I have yet to ride that lift without it stopping at least once and slowing down several other times during the ride. this is no fault of the beginners who ride it--it's right there at the bottom of the hill, and it's easier to get on and off that the Preview fixed lift right next door; I'd choose it, too, if I were a beginner. But I avoid it.
I am curious to learn more about the Elkhead replacement--does anyone know more about the plans there? Wish the reporter had dug into that. If they "improve" it with a fixed lift like they did for BC, they needn't do us any "favors"! That lift should be a high-speed quad, at the very least.
justathought: even if we agree that it would be nice if one parent could stay home and raise his or (more likely) her children, it is not realistic. while some parents choose to work rather than spend all day, every day with their kids, others have to work in order to provide a house, clothing, food, healthcare and all the other necessities of life. still others are single parents, often through no fault of their own. it benefits society overall to take care of all our kids, regardless of what choices their parents make, and research clearly shows that early childhood education and care can make an enormous difference in the lives of those children as they grow into adolescence and adulthood. reducing crime is one thing, but so is having a more educated populace. both, of course, benefit society overall and will help the US stay competitive in an increasingly global market. rather than wish the world were somthing that it isn't, let's put out energy and resources toward making the one we have better for all of us.
and, I'm curious--if you have kids, did you personally stay home to raise them?
dundalk: by "favored" I mean the countries given the lion's share of legal residency permits--the countries selected and the amount of people allowed to enter from those countries is constantly changing. back in your parents' day, they were allowed in because the Irish had a certain number of permits, if you will, and so they made it into the country legally.
snowysteamboat: why not let the market determine how many immigrants we have? once the jobs are no longer plentiful, and the living isn't better than back home, presumably people won't come in throngs anymore, right? why is it OK for the government to regulate THIS but not so many other things?
Last login: Monday, February 5, 2007
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |