On Words will never hurt us—except in Wisconsin
Posted on February 7 at 5 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
What we need here is "the rest of the story". Paul Harvey, where are you when we need you?
On Eagle soars from Rock River frost
Posted on February 6 at 9:17 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Well, now I feel better. Last September, I saw what I thought was a bald eagle on the bank of the pond in Traxler Park. Naturally, it flew off before I could snap a picture. Almost everyone I told said I was wrong, that there aren't any eagles around here. Now that Glen has seen one too, I'll be looking for eagles more often down by the river.
On Contraception mandate outrages religious groups
Posted on February 4 at 11:24 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Realitybytes, you seem to be overlooking the fact that there aren't just birth control users at issue here. There are also those who the government wants to force to distribute said birth control, whether they want to or not. In other words, there are 2 sets of people here, the birth control users, which the government is not forcing to use birth control (at least not yet anyway), and health care providers, which the government is forcing to distribute regardless of their convictions. Both groups are human beings with the same constitutionally protected rights. How can one group's rights be subverted for the benefit of the other's, particularly in light of the fact that birth control is widely available without this new mandate?
On Contraception mandate outrages religious groups
Posted on February 4 at 10:45 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
So, Gazettefan, what you are saying is that as long as there are enough priests abusing children to exceed whatever standard you set, that the rights of all Catholics can then be trampled due to guilt by association?
Your pathetic bigotry makes it impossible to take anything you say seriously.
On Contraception mandate outrages religious groups
Posted on February 4 at 10:41 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
For the most part, I agree with you, Fool_on_the_Hill. However, while I'd agree that if my neighbor has a body odor problem, while I may not care for his smell, I would never support a law that requires the use of deodorants. On the other hand, if my neighbor decides he'd like to kill his wife, I am all in favor of laws that prohibit him from doing so in the hope that his love of his own liberty will deter him from the prospect of losing it by force of those laws even if it doesn't instill respect for his wife's life, which would be the preferred motivation.
I that regard, should my neighbor believe that birth control is wrong, while I may think him mistaken for believing so, I would appose any law that would require him to distribute condoms either directly or indirectly in spite of his convictions, no matter how bizarre I may think they are.
On Contraception mandate outrages religious groups
Posted on February 3 at 11:22 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
You people are sooooo right!!! If these ignorant fools won't believe what you believe then they should be forced to act as if they believe what you believe whether they like it or not, regardless of what the second amendment says. After all, women can't get birth control anywhere else, or can they??? Anyway, that's obviously irrelevant. Since some priests have abused children, that's all the justification you need to deny these clods their most basic rights. Now, who's next up for having their rights trampled on your list of second class citizens who have disqualified themselves from human rights considerations due to their outmoded (in your opinion) beliefs and associations?
Posted on February 1 at 5:11 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
We don't need new "revenue streams". We need to live within our means. We also need to stop charging fees that are suppose to reduce taxes that never seem to be reduced. Enough of the shell games.
On Cullen won't run for governor
Posted on February 1 at 4:56 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Well, Mary Bell couldn't easily scare off Mayor Barrett, (though that tail will probably still wag the way she wants it to) but Sen. Cullen apparently wasn't quite so challenging. I wonder if the bone he no doubt was thrown was worth it.
On Obama declares war on religion
Posted on January 31 at 8:33 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
You're sooooo right, Prounion. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is so passé, to say nothing of inconvenient for the modern age. But you'd best explain it's obsolescence to your buddy Gazettefan. He's still suffering under the delusion that it's just as applicable for today as it was way back then, even if it does predate the bible.
Page 1 of 323 | Next
On Hispanic series intended to promote understanding
Posted on February 9 at 9:45 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Hi Scott! Did you realize that it's been 15 months since you last posted on your blog? I was starting to think you had retired or something.
This is hard for me to admit, but Gazettefan has a point! (Ouch! That hurt!) If it weren't for Hispanic workers (illegal or not) being willing to take a lot of these jobs, there wouldn't be many takers for them. Look at some of the attitudes displayed in the comments about all those Generac jobs that the Gazette has run stories on of late. Generac employs many Hispanics. I remember one comment posted about Generac's newly announced hiring plans was "Did they bust all the illegals working there?" or something to that effect. It seems that many of us feel that if Hispanics are employed in any number in a type of job or by an employer, it can't be a good job.
What happened to the respect that honest work used to have? We used to admire people for working hard and doing the best they can do, even if they didn't sit at a desk for a living. It seems that many only respect some type of work now. Other types are beneath them, as are those who would take such jobs.
And where did the idea that all Hispanics can be assumed to be illegal come from? I don't think that's all attributable to bigotry, but it's getting harder and harder to tell when it isn't.