Editor Joe Barker email@example.com
5:59 pm on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
I'm not sure how Fast and Furious got worked in, but let us be really, really clear:
It was an absolutely terrible idea, horrifically executed and shamefully covered up. It is also a program that began before the President took office and has stretched two administrations and 3 attorneys general. So blaming one man is like blaming one man for Apollo 12.
The comparison to NIxon is kind of embarrassing for you. Nixon had taped conversations of himself asking for campaign money to be used to fund illegal break-in's as well as threats and intimidation against journalists and enemy politicians. He tried to evoke executive privilege only to be rebuked by the Supreme Court.
And House and Senate leaders HAVE asked for the paperwork on Fast and Furious and the President has NOT been rebuked by the Court. So, again, I'm not sure about this whole comparison. What do you imagine? The President Obama was personally responsible for singing and order that directly killed 22 people? Somehow I doubt it. Mostly because it would require a number of violations of the space time continuum.
And hey, I don't think taxes or grades are particularly important to the Presidency, either, but Mitt Romney ran for President KNOWING he'd be asked to release them. What? He gets special treatment because it's fashionable to hate taxes this year? Come on.
6:00 pm on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
I agree, profits aren't a bad thing, but you stated that high taxes were hurting industry, when the profits many large companies have made prove that it simply isn't true. If taxes and regulations made companies die, then all the best companies would be in Somalia. I just think we should be reasonable when we talk about taxes: corporate tax rates are high, but profits are even higher, so clearly taxes haven't harmed business.
I'm fully educated on the Fair Housing Act, but again, let's be reasonable here. Of course the law was irresponsible and of course it was partly responsible for opening loopholes in the borrowing/lending system. But think about the logic: It was a law that actually DE-regulated much of the industry, leaving it open to manipulation. The Government didn't invent or create toxic loans or invent sub-prime mortgages, nor did they invent the practice of selling bundled debt to be gambled by hedge funds. They also did not REQUIRE that anyone practice the way they did, they did not invent memos in the archives of Bank of America and CitiBank indicating that lax regulations would allow for "unprecedented practices and profits." Of course they are to blame, but to say that ONE entity is to blame and no other (regardless of the entity) is simply incorrect.
12:10 pm on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Just out of curiosity:
Even if the doubters are right and Global Warming is a complete myth somehow fabricated by thousands of scientists working in concert across the globe, does that somehow negate the positive results we might receive from adopting more climate-friendly policies? I mean, even if it's all a lie, is a world with less carbon emissions and more green, renewable technology really a bad thing?
"What if this is all a scam and we make a better world for nothing?" Seems like a flimsy argument.
I suppose it is worth mentioning that our worldwide highest corporate tax rate has (magically) created the highest corporate profits in the world, as well as the most powerful corporations to ever exist. So, I'm not sure you can argue that taxes are choking our GE, AT&T, Koch Bros, Goldman Sachs, Exxon Mobile, Coca-Cola, WalMart or McDonald's. They all seem to be doing alright.
It's also worth noting that, when it is large companies crashing the housing industry through deliberately toxic loans and creating dependents by manipulating borrowers into impossible debt, they are, in fact, the enemy. NOt every company, mind you, just the ones run by sleaze bags and criminals.
I also agree that Romney's tax returns probably aren't that important, but considering that it has been a part of Presidential Politics for two decades, and considering that the President had to show his BIRTH CERTIFICATE to the world, I don't think you can argue that asking for his tax returns is a wildly inappropriate request. But that's just me.
11:54 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Nothing says camaraderie like regional rivalries and the phrase "undesirables." As a "20-sometthing" who has lived in the City for several years and spent plenty of time in Chesterfield, I'd like to immediately second the statement that friends don't let friends live in Chesterfield. If I wanted to see pristine homes, parks that look untouched and old-timey buildings with over priced knick-knacks, I'd move to Vermont and open an antique shop. Chesterfield is sterilized and possibly hermetically sealed. Being afraid or intimidated by the City is a child's answer. It's Saint Louis, not Calcutta.
12:13 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
So, your objection is that we didn't vote on this, and that it will be expensive, yes? A perfectly reasonable position, but perhaps not entirely accurate. First, premiums WILL be cheaper, the same way they got cheaper after we required car insurance for everybody. When healthy people enter the health care market right alongside sick people, the premiums go down. The entire point of the individual mandate (which was the result of a conservative think-tank) was a private-market solution to this problem by lowering premium costs across the board.
"We didn't vote on it" is the most infantile complaint you could have possibly made. National laws don't go for a popular vote. However, the Congress DID duly pass the ACA and the President DID affix his signature to it. This is how every national law has ever been created, so what is your objection again? You think that the people always vote on laws, or is this sudden populist outrage at our lack of inclusion based more on your own sense of personal violation than it is on actual historical fact? Our elected representatives passed a national bill, which is exactly how Democracy is supposed to work. So, I'll assume that portion of your complaint is some kind of typo.
Last, but certainly not least, it is a myth that this plan will drastically increase the cost of healthcare. Studies by the CBO and the GAO outright debunk that particular myth. So much for "spewing rhetoric."
2:00 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Devon, I would think it is closer. We live in the wealthiest, most prosperous democracy in the world. For that democracy to provide measures assuring that no American's must die because they can't afford to pay their medical bills is of great comfort to me.
What, precisely, do we feel the founders would have objected to? Because, I can tell you they also objected to popularly electing Senators. They objected to suffrage rights for women and non-property holding males. They objected to political parties. I'm not sure they ever went on record objecting to a law stipulating that all Americans purchase cheap healthcare plans from a private company. And even if they had, so what? They didn't know everything and our nation is one that develops and grows with time. Let us allow that the founders never formulated an opinion on healthcare, as it was never a relevant issue in their time. But let us also allow that wealthy democracies are perfectly capable of providing universal healthcare without subjecting their citizens to backbreaking tyranny.
1:07 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Fun observation: It seems a number of people object to Obamacare as being "unconsitutional." The fact that the court ruled that it was, in fact, perfectly legal doesn't seem to have changed any opinions on the issue. Large numbers of people with absolutely NO legal background are now going to keep calling it an act of Tyranny or Treason or Socialism or Whatever, despite the highest court in our nation saying basically the exact opposite. So what's the point of using the court if we are just going to throw a Socialism tantrum anyway?
4:47 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012
Well, we both know this isn't true, right Dan? We are talking about providing instruction on homosexuality, we aren't talking about classes on gays or heterosexuals. It's not like the classes are titled "How to have Sex: Which Hole is Right for You." We're talking about basic social science classes. We're talking about health classes which teach about abstinence or safe sex which do not address the merits of safe sex or abstinence in the realm of homosexual relationships. We are talking about teenagers of any sexual orientation unable to ask questions about sex of their teachers. We are talking about student organizations like LGBT clubs that will no longer have legitimacy at their schools, thus alienating their members. We're talking about school counselors forbidden from discussing sexuality with gay teens who are the victims of bullying. Do you want your child entering the world at a disadvantage because Missouri legislators were too bigoted to allow teachers to say that gay people do, in fact, exist? And since legislation regarding homosexuals have pervaded our national culture for the last 10 years, ignoring the existence of homosexuals or the merits (or lack thereof) of such laws leave children at an intellectual disadvantage. How can they voice their opinions on politics, sex or love if their education has been dampened by this absurd legislation?
What reason do you have to believe that Necrophilia or Bestiality will be taught in our schools as a result? Do any schools in Missouri provide such instruction? Of course not. Would you have the children of Missouri codified into ignorance thanks to their legislators? What, precisely, is the plan, here? Are Missouri teachers merely to act as though homosexuality does not exist? That sounds great, now when our children are young adults entering the world, they will do so at a clear disadvantage from their neighboring states, having had certain subjects banned entirely from their curriculum. What an immature stance to take on an issue of relatively little controversy, I would remind Mark the state of Missouri has already banned gay marriage in the state on the constitutional level. I would remind him that gays are already excluded from equal protection and human-rights laws in the state of Missouri. Now, would you have their very existence, the nature of their very being, be denied or ignored by schools because a small number of small minded bigots cannot fathom their children being exposed to any idea not approved by themselves? What benefit do we do our children by sterilizing their world in school, simply to thrust them into the filthy world once they are done anyway? What damage is done when children aren't taught sex education, and then thrust into college? What damage is done when they aren't taught about racism and then thrust into a University with diverse students?
Advertise on Patch and reach potential customers in your backyard and beyond. Click here for more information.
Learn more »
If you want to help local causes, or your cause needs local help, your next click should be right here.
Learn more »
St. Peters news, events, and deals sent to you daily and breaking news as it happens.
See more options
You’re now signed up!
Enter your tip here and it will be sent straight to
St. Peters Patch's (incredibly grateful)