Letters, November 27

The Rocky

Published November 27, 2007 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

Comments

November 27, 2007

7:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

Earl your the problem that James was trying to address. The two party system will destroy this great nation. And you are so hung up on your beloved party you can't see it. James I may not be ready to jump on the Libertarians ban wagon but we do need to get rid of the two party system.
November 27, 2007

8:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

Actually James you should have said, "if you want to waste your time, register as a Libertarian". Good point about going after employers. Any serious effort to stop illegal immigration should start with the employers.
November 27, 2007

9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

I think Earl is missing the point about the smoking ban. Earl, are you against work place regulation that states companies can't willingly expose their employees to asbestos, benzine or radioactive materials?
November 27, 2007

9:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

Oh joy! A blog allows one to dash off a brilliant riposte to some flawed argument or rhetorical atrocity, without having to deal with publishing schedules or, worse, editors who insist that factual assertions be true, and who place other tiresome demands on creative genius, even as it pours forth from a metaphorical pen.

Steve Vassau will never learn: Common sense is a collection of a person's bias and prejudices, which is why it is called common. Common sense makes sense in his world because he attaches more value to his than to the rest of others combined and is willing to build pyres. Common sense is skinny on facts and fat on bias. Mark Herandez says believe in Christ or pout.

Talk-show host Peter Boyles says: "Change Santa Claus and you change Christmas." The Eastern sea-board created Santa and I am grateful. Whether he is fat or skinny does not matter. Santa, my illusion, brings joy and cheer, whereas, the other dude, a "jew" transmogrified into a god, Hernandez's delusion, brings fear and hate. His Rule is by fear: Hate your mother, father, sister, brother, brethren and follow me, says the "jew" and if that does not define a cult, a cow does not have teats. Fear is a great inspiration. I agree with jvd:

"jvd" says: Use euphemisms and keep the cancer out of our friendly civil discourses. Me, Your friendly deicide, intelligent enough to be an atheist but lack the courage: Richard Grimes r22037@yahoo.com

Deicide Corner: “In the name of religion, one tortures, persecutes, build pyres. . . .” (burning at the stake)-- Eugene Ionesco
November 27, 2007

11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

lcdrjjxant:
I'm a veitnam Vet. And I'm no racist I hate racist. But I for one am tired of hearing that the black vets are not being treated fairly. There is thousands of white vets that in the same boat. If I wrote a letter saying that the white disabled vets were getting a raw deal I would be called a racist. We were all brothers in nam lets not divide us.
November 27, 2007

11:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"jay having toxic waste is much different than having a business owner allow smoking in his business."

They both cause cancer. What other differences matter?

You don't have the right to provide your employees with an unsafe working environment. Period.
November 27, 2007

11:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

Forty acres (Ic...) will surely be canonized, placed in the canon of saints. Submitted by Richard Grimes, Denver deicide r22037@yahoo.com

Deicide Corner: “Ethical teaching is weakened if it is tied up with dogmas that will not bear examination.” -- Margaret Knight
November 27, 2007

12:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

No Earl that is what you want . Because after reading several of your posts you want one party the republican party.
November 27, 2007

12:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Jay,

Get real! This smoking issue never has been nor ever will be about an unsafe working environment for the employees. This is about a group of do-gooders running around in the polluting SUVs, and sitting around drinking their lattes at Starbucks, who believe they know what is best for the rest of the world, and find smoking a disgusting habit. When they are driving around not paying attention to the traffic and talking on their crackberries they are putting far more people in danger than the owner of a business who offers a smoking and non smoking area in their business.
November 27, 2007

1:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"This smoking issue never has been nor ever will be about an unsafe working environment for the employees."

jdg, let's start with the basics and try to walk you through this...you do know that cancer is caused by secondhand smoke, right?
November 27, 2007

3 p.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

Mark Hernandez wrote "Live and let live. If you don't believe in Christ, stay in your own little corner and pout."
His second sentence contradicts his first. Apparently he's for "live and let live" as long as one is a Christian. Non-Christians have every right to be here, and they have every right under the US and Colorado constitutions to expect that government be neutral towards "all" religions, not just the ones that Mark or the Larimer County Sheriff like.
If you want to worship the birth of Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God incarnate, you are free to do so. But I suggest you go to a church or put up any religious display you wish to on your own private property. Sheriff's offices, courthouses, or city or county buildings, are not the place do do so.
November 27, 2007

3:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

farmboy writes:

jay wrote, "you do know that cancer is caused by secondhand smoke, right?"

Yes, but so what? Government's banning smoking in a private business to prevent cancer is no different than, say, its banning the drinking of wine in a restaurant to prevent drunk driving.
November 27, 2007

3:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Smoking in a place used by the public is a unique situation that does not compare to driving SUV`s, eating fatty food, drunk driving, or farting in an elevator.

This situation bothers the workers, the people who come in as purveyors, and anyone else who comes in, even if, Goddess help them, they were not dragged into the establishment in chains.

People used to smoke in grocery stores, hospitals and even court houses, but slowly we, as a group, are getting smoke and burning cigarettes out of public places and businesses that are open to the public.

We may tinker with the laws, but there is no going back to the old days.
November 27, 2007

3:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Jeff writes:

Jay, to address your comment about second hand smoke, from what I've heard the jury is still out on that, but for the sake of argument, we'll say yes, Second-Hand Smoke Causes Cancer. However, what does that mean? What amounts? What level of exposure? Someone who lives in a poorly ventilated apartment for 20 years with a chain-smoker, how does that person compare to a motorist driving during the summer who may have a window down and, at a stoplight, get a breath of smoke from the adjacent motorist? What if I walk down the street and walk by some guys smoking ... do I now have cancer?
I'm probably beating the expired stallion, here, but I think it's worth really analyzing the claim "Second-Hand Smoke Causes Cancer," especially when such a claim is used as the foundation of punative legislation.
The way I see it, to argue in favor of this no-exemptions smoking ban, you inadvertently argue that people a)can't choose what businesses to patronize, and b)can't choose where to work.
November 27, 2007

3:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Yes, but so what? Government's banning smoking in a private business to prevent cancer is no different than, say, its banning the drinking of wine in a restaurant to prevent drunk driving."

No...it's not. Banning driving drunk would be akin to banning smoking...because that is what effects those around you...not drinking at a bar.

Is drunk driving legal, farmer john?

"Jay, to address your comment about second hand smoke, from what I've heard the jury is still out on that,"

After that statement anything else you right has been damaged by it's complete absurdity. Yes secondhand smoke causes cancer. Enough said. Can I blow just a little bit of asbestos into your work air? How about putting just a little bit of benzine in your drinking water? Hey, I know...I'll just put a little radium in your body. how'd that be?

Earl...yes...secondhand smoke causes cancer. Welcome to the big boys table. Screaming isn't going to help you prove your ridiculous position on this matter.
November 27, 2007

4:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

Why is it that Republicans think it's their divine right to do anything they want to do irregardless of the damaging effects the activity may have to others? Don't get upset when we call you guy's ignorant as it seems to be a goal your actually working hard to obtain.
November 27, 2007

5:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Jay,

"jdg, let's start with the basics and try to walk you through this...you do know that cancer is caused by secondhand smoke, right?"

I have yet to find a death certificate that stated: Cause of death,
second hand smoke. I may agree that smoking can cause cancer, however I still believe this second hand smoke is a sham. I could tell you that salt can kill you, and could prove it. If I shoved enough salt down your throat it could kill you. The question Earl asked is the one being asked by many people How much second smoke do you have to breath in before you can develop cancer? I believe the same people that are affected by second hand smoke are also affected by simply breathing the air in downtown Denver and all of the other pollutes being put out, probably by their own SUVs, along with from many other sources.
November 27, 2007

5:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

farmboy writes:

Here we have leftside, whose grammar is atrocious ("irregardless" is considered poor style. "guy's" is possessive, not plural. And "your" is possessive, not the contraction "you're"), calling other people ignorant.

Now, why is it that Democrats think its their divine right to prevent people from making their own choices? Don't get upset when we call you guys nannies as it seems to be a goal you're actually working hard to obtain.
November 27, 2007

5:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

Good grammar farmboy, now do you think you can use your own lines. Maybe go listen to Rush. He can help you with that.
November 27, 2007

6:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"I still believe this second hand smoke is a sham."

We see this phenomenon a lot from the far right. Global warming, embryonic stem cell research, evolution, realistic sex ed, etc etc etc. There is an increasing list of issues in which you folks on the far right simply refuse to believe...no matter how sound the scientific consensus on the matter is. There's really nothing we're going to be able to do for you that you won't do for yourself.

"If I shoved enough salt down your throat it could kill you. "

And this would be illegal as well. Thanks for proving the point.

"How much second smoke do you have to breath in before you can develop cancer?"

How much asbestos can you inhale before developing mesothelioma? how much benzine can you drink without passing birth defects on to your children? Do you see the absurdity of that argument? Pretty soon you'll be telling us that inhaling one/trillionth-squared of cigarette smoke while walking outside is just as dangerous as inhaling cigarette smoke in a closed environement...wait a minute...nevemind.
November 27, 2007

6:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

The smoking ban is an infringement on business owners rights-period.

Allow each establishment to make its own choice of smoke free or a smoking section. People will vote with their feet and their wallets to determine if that business will survive.

As far as employees, business owners may have to sweeten the pot by paying a higher wage or offering benefits like health insurance or paid vacations. Again, let the market decide.

I believe the market will ultimately be responsible for lifting the ban. The state will see a drastic drop in casino tax revenues not long after the Jan 1st ban goes into effect hopefully prompting a casino and then statewide reversal.

It is interesting to note the party most responsible for these nannyistic laws also makes the most noise regarding supposed infringements on their own personal liberties.

The old,"I'll tell you what to do but don't tell me what to do" mentality so often found in todays new liberals.
November 27, 2007

6:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Jay,

"Pretty soon you'll be telling us that inhaling one/trillionth-squared of cigarette smoke while walking outside is just as dangerous as inhaling cigarette smoke in a closed environement...wait a minute...nevemind."

Ha Ha, actually you bring up a great example which proves my point. Have you seen the signs on the doors stating "No smoking with 15 feet of the door"? Is that because walking outside and maybe getting a whiff of smoke is dangerous to your health? And how about smoking in a public park, same thing? The fact is you and your ilk find smoking a disgusting habit and have through some bias science have proven a Canadian rat made to live in a one foot square box filled with cigarette smoke contracted cancer. Therefore secondhand smoke must cause cancer, end of story. Just like the Global warming hoax, I follow the money and that gives me a very good indication of the validity of the "science"
November 27, 2007

7:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Uno writes:

James Phelps wrote “If you want to control what others eat, drive, smoke, how they live or whom they marry, register and vote for Republicans. They are the best at controlling how people live.”
Interesting point, let’s see how much of it is true and actually supported by Republicans;
Ban guns – no
Ban SUVs – nope
Ban smoking – some, but majority against banning
Advocate against eating fatty unhealthy food / propose laws to control – again large majority no
Advocate against hunting – no
Against eating meat – no
Against wearing fur – no
Tax tobacco out of existence – no
Tax ammunition out of existence – no
Sue gun manufacturers out of existence - no
Force into government controlled health care – big no
Control what people say or how they say it (see revised PC definitions) – no
Say something unpopular or deemed sexist or racist and loose your job (applies to white males only) - no
Who gets married – yes, but on the other hand so is the Democratic majority

So James, that makes you a liar.
November 27, 2007

8 p.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

Get real, that is a good argument and it is possible that if the casino's suffer because of the ban that they would lift it but it wouldn't be lifted for long. Two reasons:

1. The public is now used to going into public places without having to smell smoke and if they don't realize it now they will when and if it comes back. I was raised with two smokers, didn't bother me a bit. I'd go into a cafe and when they asked smoking or non-smoking I'd ask which could get me seated fastest. Since the ban I can now tell and hate going into places that allow smoking. So the public will speak.

2. If it is lifted, some lawyer is going to break ground and start suing employers workercomp policies for "Grey Lung". Hey, if coal miners can get disability and medical payments for Black Lung it makes since that Grey Lung will be right around the corner and premiums will skyrocket for those establishments that allow smoking. Now the business owner will create a self emposed ban.

I now at this point your thinking that it would then be the business owners choice but why go through the expense for something that is inevitable?
November 27, 2007

8:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Leftside,

Again you prove my point it is not a health issue, it is because you just don't like the smell of smoke. So your health issue argument goes out the window.

Proving it is only the cigarette smoke that causes, as you call, "gray lung" to a bunch of liberal do-gooders and proving it in a court of law are totally different. Proving smoking causes cancer may not have been that difficult but lets see you prove second hand smoke does under oath and in a court of law. Can you say cross examination!
November 27, 2007

8:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

RB writes:

In Steve Vassau's letter to the editor, "Campos sense vs. common sense" Rocky Mountain News 11/27/2007, he states, "its people like you that help us common, dumb people make intelligent choices in our lives. Thanks for giving us an insight as to how liberals view common folk, you condescending doofus!"

Mr. Vassau, if there is one journalist on the Rocky Mountain News's payroll who is condescending, name calling and out right on an "Ivory Tower", its Mike Rosen. With his radio program and weekly column he repeatedly talks down to "us working folk" on a regular basis. For example, his political position regarding unions, especially the Teachers union.

The point of all of this is the Rocky Mountain News employs journalists who will encourage others to debate the current events of our time. Though I do not appreciate Mr. Rosen's column and his political opinion, I do respect it because his commentary does inspire those like you and me to write the editorial pages with our own opinions. It would be nice if the conservatives of this country could cease with the name calling, i.e. Ann Coulter, and simply engage in a debate and agree to disagree yet, get their point across. But, I guess such an idea is too Liberal for some conservatives. Proud to be a Liberal.

R. Brunecz
November 27, 2007

9:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Uno writes:

I just happen to come across this comment, the height of hypocrisy “It would be nice if the conservatives of this country could cease with the name calling, i.e. Ann Coulter, and simply engage in a debate and agree to disagree yet, get their point across.” – so we can assume that Air America hosts never engaged in name calling especially Randi Rhodes, Al Fanken never wrote a book about a fat idiot you know who, F*** Bush never appeared in a you know what college paper and T-shirts, no celebrity liberals ever called the president names in foreign countries standing next to Hugo Chaves, and Louis Farrakhan never said anything negative about whites and Jews, just to mention a few. I guess liberals just like to lie, it comes naturally.
November 27, 2007

9:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

leftside 8:00 PM-

1. So let the public speak by choosing to walk out of that smokey place and take their business to a non smoking establishment. The market demand will dictate whether that business stays open or folds.Why not give people the choice to go where they want? The ban has forced numerous ma and pa taverns to go belly up. The little guy is who is hurt the most - put yourself in their position.

2. As litigious as society is becoming, employers could require prospective workers to sign a waiver against suing for any future second hand smoke health risks. Or coverage could possibly be included in policies such as dram shop.

The whole idea is the worker knows what they are getting into and there is a voluntary trade off between employer and employee.If the business can't get any workers they will have to pay more.If profits suffer due to high labor costs the place folds. Over time I bet you would see full time restaurants go totally non smoking, restaurants with a bar only smoking section,and almost all neighborhood taverns saying smoke if you got 'em.

Let the market sort it out, not legislation driven by anti smoking zealots who could easily not frequent a business that allows its customers that choice.
November 27, 2007

10:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

RB said-

"It would be nice if the conservatives of this country could cease with the name calling, i.e. Ann Coulter, and simply engage in a debate and agree to disagree yet, get their point across. But, I guess such an idea is too Liberal for some conservatives. Proud to be a Liberal."

What, you mean loving liberals like Debbie Frisch?
http://donthiredeb.blogspot.com/2006/...

Or maybe these guys-
http://nwrepublican.blogspot.com/2007...
November 27, 2007

10:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

Or how about this?
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/234388.php

Or this gem by a notable liberal blogger-
http://nwrepublican.blogspot.com/2007...
November 27, 2007

10:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

farmboy writes:

leftside wrote, "now do you think you can use your own lines."

How else can one show you what your grammar should look like, if your words aren't given back to you corrected?
November 27, 2007

10:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

Or one of my favorite even tempered dems, Rep Pete Stark
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/18/...

And who could ever forget these peaceful, non hating progressives-(warning,adult content)
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/
November 27, 2007

10:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

jgd,

"Again you prove my point it's not a health issue."

That's quite the reach. Just because I didn't mention "health issue" in that particular post doesn't mean that it's not.

I'm sure the lawyers defending the Black Lung issue felt the same way and lost. Independant scientific study vs dependant (paid for) scientific study. Independant will generally win out. It's a credibility thing.

Get Real,

Again, I understand what your saying and it is a good argument. However, it was put to a vote and the people "did" chose and they chose no smoking in public places. Winning that vote, if I recall, by a fairly wide margin. Not all them are zealot's or nanny's they simply don't want to be around it and since the business owners would not control it the public did. That's the way America works. Sometimes you agree with it sometimes you don't.
November 27, 2007

10:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

leftside-

Your point on the voting aspect is well taken although I'm not sure it was the people who spoke rather than pandering politicians.

If you get a chance, check this out-
http://www.freecolorado.com/2006/04/s...
November 28, 2007

12:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Jimminy writes:

Time to repeat that there are more smokers than illegals and more guns than children in the USA...
Allen Campbell,where are you?
November 28, 2007

9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

jdg, you're still reaching. It is about health. It's about cancer. It's about providing a safe working environment.

I know that accepting these facts completely invalidates your position, but sticking your head in the sand isn't a valid debate tactic.
November 28, 2007

10:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

Is Groff best choice? In politics, there is never a best choice: Trust them all but cut the cards. What happened to Nov. 28 letters? This new format is easier on the eyes not having to read the pejorative words found in the old format. Richard Grimes, deicide r22037@yahoo.com

Deicide Corner: “Prisons are built with stones of Law, Brothels with bricks of Religion.” -- William Blake “I now believe in nothing, to put it shortly; but I do not the less believe in morality.” -- Sir Leslie Stephen
November 28, 2007

10:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Jay,

http://www.data-yard.net/2/12/1440.pdf

http://www.data-yard.net/14/1666.htm

http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafra...

http://www.data-yard.net/39/cabin.pdf

As long is there is conflicting evidence, I refuse to just accept your assumptions that secondhand smoke is a health hazard. Again, I follow the money when considering the validity of any "study"
November 28, 2007

10:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

farmboy, feel free to correct my grammar whenever you wish. If your going to be in here you may as well be of some use.
November 28, 2007

10:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Brad writes:

RB
I do not know if you have read thr article or not. He says how smart he his and how dumb the common person is because they do not read and think for themselves like he does. By your standard calling someone dumb or stupid is what a compliment. Democrates do the name calling also look at the Huffington report.com, Air America, Move-On.org for name calling. So what does the union do to help with anything now days.
November 28, 2007

10:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

Again we see jdg going against scientific consensus on yet another issue.

Just so I have this straight, jdg, you don't believe that secondhand smoke causes cancer. Do I have that correct?
November 28, 2007

11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

KW writes:

Wow jay, that's fantastic! We don't need scientific evidence anymore, just a group to agree and then we can call it a "concensus" and label the dissenters "deniers." Funny part though is you complain that anyone who speaks out against Bush or Iraq is labeled a "traitor" and cry about how wrong that is... At least, wrong only if the labelers are against your position. You really should try to have consistency in your standards if you want people to ever take you seriously.

Here's some excerps regarding the "concensus" study you claim as fact regarding second-hand smoke:

"EPA has declared environmental tobacco smoke a carcinogen that causes 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year. However, this conclusion is under dispute. EPA was roundly criticized in 1993 for the scientific evaluation that led it to rule second-hand smoke a class-A carcinogen. The EPA study amalgamated 11 studies into one group -- what EPA called a meta-analysis. Critics say that such combinations may be valid, but if the individual studies were not done the same way, then the results may be suspect. Alfred P. Wehner, president of Biomedical and Environmental Consultants Inc. of Richland, WA, said, "I did work for the EPA in the past and thought of them reasonably well, but when I saw that report, I was really embarrassed. It was a bad document.. . .To get scientifically valid data, there are very strict rules and requirements on how and when you can apply meta-analysis, and virtually all of them were violated in the EPA analysis." [Investor's Business Daily, 1/28/93]

In response to requests by Congress to review the literature associated with secondhand smoke, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in testimony before the Senate concluded that the "statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking." And, CRS in a written report for Congress found that "even at the greatest (exposure) levels, the measured risks are still subject to uncertainty" ["CRS Report for Congress: Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer Risk," 11/14/95].

You see jay, just because a group can come up with a bunch of scientists to claim their findings are fact doesn't make it so.

Kinda like gw, huh?
November 28, 2007

11:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Jay,

I am saying that if you put a Canadian rat is a one foot square box and filled it with secondhand smoke, he MAY develop cancer. However if you put that same rat in a one foot square box and filled it with the exhaust from the vehicle you drive, I would almost guarantee he would die.

The point I am making is a group of people sitting in a nonsmoking area of a restaurant have almost zero chances of getting cancer from the secondhand smoke that might seep out of the smoking area.
This issue was brought up because restaurateurs, like mayor Hick where losing business when they went totally smoke free, . To even the playing field they pushed this infringement of individuals right through and drove many private individuals out of business.
This is about greed, plain and simple. Almost forgot, "it is for the children"
November 28, 2007

1:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

I go off-topic in reply to Jay, KW and jgd since they are off-topic even though smoking is mentioned under Libertarian Option and ask is December 25 best to be called Greedmas? Their dialogue misses totally the message Lib sends and still I read their useless banter one's common sense (bias and prejudice) far more discerning, clever, cunning, ingenious (thanks dictionary.com) than the other. Ah! But is that not what a blog is for? Thanks guys: Just leave Uno's asterisk out of it least it obtrude a new format just about the time we are getting used to this one. Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo.com

Deicide Corner: "As the caterpillar chooses the fairest leaves to lay her eggs on, so the priest lays his curse on the fairest joys.” -- William Blake
November 28, 2007

2:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Funny part though is you complain that anyone who speaks out against Bush or Iraq is labeled a "traitor" and cry about how wrong that is... "

This is a strawman argument, KW...what have I asked you to do in regards to using them?

"Here's some excerps regarding the "concensus" study you claim as fact regarding second-hand smoke"

I never claimed any such thing.

but nice try.

secondhand smoke causes cancer fellas. Being a Denier on this one actually hurts more than your credibility. Don't smoke around your kids.
November 28, 2007

4:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

Fatty...I respect the gov't decision to protect the workforce from unsafe working environments. I could care less what you on your own time in your own home and in your own bedroom...unlike most of the Republican I know.
November 28, 2007

4:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

jay,

I respect the gov't decision to protect the workforce from unsafe working environments

Let's change just a few words and see what you think of it

I respect the gov't decision to protect the citizens from Muslim terrorist.

Both consist of taking away the rights of a some people to protect the masses. Still feel the same?
November 28, 2007

5:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Alive writes:

I admit I have been depressed at how fast our nation was going downhill, but today I noticed some things.

Glenn Beck's book is a #1 bestseller.

Lou Dobbs ratings are through the roof. He has been moved to prime time.

Almost all the presidential candidates suddenly have religion when it comes to illegal immigration.

Air America, MSNBC and the New York Times are losing audience.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is all but dead. The NAU may well be defeated.

Many far left loonies STILL refuse to brush their teeth.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ME!
November 28, 2007

7:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Charles B.

I understand your desire to rant and rave about the evil of Bush and the war, however the point I was making is Jay is willing to take away certain people's (private business owners) rights to, as he calls it, protect the workforce.

On the other hand, he is up in arms over some of the rights he perceives have been taken away to protect the citizens from Muslim terrorists.

So if he agrees with an issue then it is okay to take away someone's rights but if he disagrees with an issue then it isn't
I was just wondering where in the Constitution it states "these rights are only guaranteed on whether or not Jay likes them?"
November 28, 2007

7:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

Taking away the right of a suspect to get a fair trial in America has ZERO analogous connection with not allowing employers to expose their employees to asbestos, benzine and secondhand smoke.

wow...I thought you were reaching before...but you just set a new record.

don't hurt yourself
November 28, 2007

7:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Charles B.

However the person I was writing to, namely Jay, does in fact believe it is okay to take away some people's rights to protect the masses (smoking ban) but not the other(patriot act). I profess you can condemn both or approve both, but you can not condemn one and approve of the other without being a hypocrite.
November 28, 2007

7:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Jay,

You forgot to mention nuclear waste!!!
November 28, 2007

8:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

ripcord 785

Anger is the tool of the ignorant, the angrier they get the more legitimate my position becomes. Ignoring or refusing to acknowledge any opposing position, only strengthens the validity of those positions.

I have acknowledge that "an excessive amount" of secondhand smoke may in some cases cause cancer. What is "an excessive amount" is the point in question and is "an excessive amount" being forced on any employee or customer without their knowledge? More importantly do we as a country have a right to take away a person freedom to choose to enter, leave or work in that establishment?
November 28, 2007

8:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Charles B.

What rights have you "personally" lose because of the Patriot Act?
November 28, 2007

8:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

Charles 3:19-

Its all good my man.
November 28, 2007

10:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Charles B.

We are talking about issue that have yet to be proven and not well documented historical events. Danger of secondhand smoke, terrorist threats, and global warming are all issue still open to debate. There has been no clear evidence to confirm or deny the validity of these issues. The absurdity of your examples do nothing more than prove my statements.

Jay insist secondhand smoke should be dealt with in the same manner as asbestos, or benzine and refuses to even consider any evidence that might go against his beliefs.

You on the other hand, might acknowledge to some degree a terrorist threat, but feel it should be dealt with in the same manner we treat shoplifters. If you can't find the bomb on their person then they should be allowed to go free. Even in the case of the Fort Dix six, the possession of a bomb was not really enough because they didn't actually denote it. Criminal intent is a crime with minimum documentation. Do they actually have to blow something up before we can do anything?
November 29, 2007

10:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Charles B.

The farleft has stated the terrorist are entitled to the same rights and privileges awarded the citizens of the US. These statement are in the archives which are no longer available. They constantly condemn the Patriot Act, because of their lose of rights. When dealing with the terrorist, they continue to quote the Constitution as their defense for the terrorist. Like I have said before our Constitution is not a suicide note.

Anything that this government does in a proactive way is ridiculed because there is no documentation or confirmation, and the only confirmation that seems acceptable to the farleft ilk is a burning a building and dead bodies. I expect our government to use the available intelligence information to stop the terrorist before this happens, and not wait until the only thing we can do is draw chalk lines around the dead bodies.

As far as the debate on whether or not there is a terrorist threat, the farleft believes we caused the threat and if we were just nicer to the terrorist they would go away. If that is how you believe also then you can include yourself into the group of the farleft ilk, if not then you are in a very small minority. You believe in fighting the terrorist but in a way only you understand, because it sure doesn't fit in with the farleft. Based on your letters it doesn't seem to fit into any plan that would actually confront the terrorist either.

*I tried to make sense of this, but failed. Are you saying that terrorist threats as an issue are not valid? These issues may be "open to debate", but among people who actually, you know, study the issues, the only debate is to how best address the problems, not whether they *really are* problems.*

I believe John Edwards stated it best when you said when he said "Terrorism is just something on a bumper sticker"
November 29, 2007

12:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"The farleft has stated the terrorist are entitled to the same rights and privileges awarded the citizens of the US."

Once again we see the damage jdg's position on the extreme far right of the political spectrum does to his world view. By implying (with a strawman argument no less) that the only folks in America who agree with giving terror suspects a free trial...he once again cements his right wing status with the belief that the vast majority of the american people are "farleft".

"As far as the debate on whether or not there is a terrorist threat, the farleft believes we caused the threat and if we were just nicer to the terrorist they would go away"

One more strawman argument today and you get the Rushian hat trick.
Understanding that US foreign policies...particularly our oil-induced footprint in the Middle East, the Iraq War and our military and financial support for Israel's policy stances in the Gaza...are contributing to the destabilization there is not the same as believing we "caused the threat". Understanding that evolving some of those stances will help to mitigate the threat from the ME doesn't equal the belief that if we are "just nice to the terrorists they will go away".

Understand the difference?
November 29, 2007

2:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

Now see, rip, I respect your honesty. You believe that our dependence on foreign oil justifies the needless war in iraq and the rest of the decisions we make there. I have several friends that feel the same way. I don't agree with you, but at least you're honest about why were there and your support for it. Our need to maintain ANY kind of footprint (competent or not) in the middle east should be more than reason enough to make the development of alternative energy sources the moonshot of our generation. It will have to be a generational commitment in order to be effective. In the meantime, there are steps we can take that, while not as profitable to the industries involved (and the lobbyists/politicians whose mouths they feed) would significantly reduce the chance that we'll continue to breed new generations of terrorists from that part of the world.
November 29, 2007

3:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Would you let us take more from the Alaskan slope, or from more offshore drilling?"

If they would make a significant enough dent in the problem to warrant it...but the problem is...they don't. This is a common problem. These stances are being propogated for the benefit of profit...not for the benefit of the american people. That's a problem common to the Republican party for the last 8 years. That's the problem that lost them Congress. That's the problem that has the vast majority of Americans siding with democrats on nearly every major issue before the country. That's the problem that continues to deny the Right the ability to run on their own track record and policy stances. That's the problem that will require another historic round of swiftboating in order to remain competitive in 08. You hit the nail on the head.

"Would you relax the major obstacles from environmentalists from doing more for alternative sources?"

What "obstacles" are "environmentalists" putting in place to block access to viable alternative energy sources. See above if you think drilling for puddles (in an economy of scale sense) is viable.

"Can we put more nuclear energy into the mix?"

Can you guarantee that the saudis won't fly a plane into it?

"Are we better or worse off with Saddam gone?"

Well...let's think about that. The vast majority of Iraqis consistently insist in scientific polling that their lives were better before our occupation. Commerce in Iraq decreased exponentially. According to industry experts the astronomical rise in oil prices has been largely cause by the unrest in th eME and the failure in iraq. Financial experts (including the ones in our own WH) have admitted that the cost of energy is one of the major reasons the US is heading back towards recession (the second one to officially start on the Republican's watch). The vast majority of iraqis want americans gone. According to the reports from our own military and intelligence communities our policies in iraq have made us less safe, allowed the taliban to regain prominence in Afghanistan, allowed AQ to restrengthen to 9/10 levels, further destabilized (than before saddam) the Middle East and have taken our military to the "breaking point"...leaving us "unable to effectively engage in another sizeable conflict".

What do you think, rip, considering those facts...were we better off invading...or not?
November 29, 2007

4:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

" I only feel that stability in Iraq, also stabilizes the world economy."

So, rip, by that logic, the fact that our own intelligence and military communites have admitted that Iraq has further destabilized the middle east means that the war wasn't justified.

There again...why would we even waste time tearing up our own country for oil sources that aren't worth the taxpayers investment? We subsidize the oil companies...why don't we shift those subsidies into alternative energy and allow those folks to do the dirty work of going abroad and finding sources that are worth both the time, money and environmental impact. free market...you know?
November 29, 2007

7:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Charles B.

So now you believe what is on Foxnews?
November 29, 2007

7:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Charles B.

That "far left" character is the one you see in the mirror every morning.
December 1, 2007

9:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"I do not feel that our dependence on foreign oil justifies the war in Iraq. I think other factors justify that. "

Okay, I'll bite...give me a little insight into the "other factors" of which you speak?

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor

Letters, November 27

The Rocky

Published November 27, 2007 at 12:05 a.m.

More Letters to the Editor

Share

Comments

Post your comment

Featured

Columns & Blogs

News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Calendar

Upcoming events

Sponsored links