I see that Ray Lockwood opposes having a county auditor to oversee the bill paying, but I noticed he didn't oppose getting mileage to come to his part-time job with the county legislators.
Let the people have the means of self-protection. No five-year pistol renewals -- it's all about control.
If America could put a man on the moon in 10 years, I could destroy 100,000 jobs in 100 days.
I do not own a gun, although I do have a permit, and it doesn't bother that it has to be renewed every five years. I think the NRA is full of nuts!
Click here to see the previous round of Two Cents entries
Two Cents starter comments will be updated online as new submissions are called in or e-mailed. To contribute new Two Cents items, please call 253-5311 ext. 292 or e-mail twocents@lee.net.
Citizen
Hot Jobs
New! Off the Menu
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are 61 comment(s)
daydreamer wrote on May 5, 2009 8:12 AM:
sick of it wrote on May 4, 2009 11:12 PM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on May 4, 2009 5:00 PM:
karl the 2nd wrote on May 4, 2009 3:36 PM:
You probably make a better hamburger than you do a legal argument. "
karl the 2nd wrote on May 4, 2009 3:34 PM:
David, you try hard to pretend that you have morals, but your words show that you do not. Either that, or you really don't know what it means to have morals.
Saying "yes" to Torture because you are scared of the big bad man with a bomb is not "moral". If you call them "your own standards", then that is even more of a problem, because it proves that you really don't know what morals are, now, do you?
Again, you and Chris are trying to find any way to justi--to make excuses for bad men in our own country who tortured people and made bad war crimes. This proves that not you or Chris have morals. You are just skeered by bad men in your minds who do bad things to you and your mommy in your bad dreams at night. Don't worry, david; it will be ok if we don't torture, I promise. Just say "NO" to Torture.
There-a total big-word-free post for you, david. Are we clear now?! "
karl the 2nd wrote on May 4, 2009 3:27 PM:
"Also, quit using the thesaurus on your computer to produce big words-you sound ridiculous"
DAVID, ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!
Being educated and having a voluminous vocabulary makes you sound SILLY?!?!
HA HA HAHA AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!
Well, THAT just tells us EVERYTHING we need to know about you (AND NeoChris) now, doesn't it!
OH MY GOD, I"M ROLLING OFF MY COUCH!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
To be 110% honest, david--I know you find this hard to believe, but I speak that way in REAL LIFE.
By the way--what word was it that you had to look up?! Please--seriously, amuse us all with your admission? "
karl the 2nd wrote on May 4, 2009 3:23 PM:
"Of course Karl, in his revisionist liberal histry..." and "...10 seconds of fear...that we used on 3 terrorists. ""
WROOOONG!!!
From "http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/20/cia.waterboarding/"
"CIA interrogators used waterboarding at least 266 times on two top al Qaeda suspects, according to a Bush-era Justice Department memo released by the Obama administration.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, seen in a December sketch, was waterboarded 183 times in a month, a memo says.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, seen in a December sketch, was waterboarded 183 TIMES IN A MONTH, a memo says.
The controversial technique that simulates drowning -- and which President Obama calls torture -- was used AT LEAST 83 TIMES in August 2002 on suspected al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah, according to the memo."
CHRIS; just for comedy's sake, I've also included the nit-picky pathetic attempt to fins ANY excuse in it to try to mitigate it. Of course, they report that;
"A U.S. official with knowledge of the interrogation program told FOX News that the much-cited figure represents the number of times water was poured onto Mohammed's face -- not the number of times the CIA applied the simulated-drowning technique on the terror suspect. According to a 2007 Red Cross report, he was subjected a total of "five sessions of ill-treatment."
"The water was poured 183 times -- there were 183 pours," the official explained, adding that "each pour was a matter of seconds."
Now, given that EACH TIME simulates drowning and imminent death, EACH TIME is a war crime, EACH TIME is a violation. AND THAT CONSTITUTES TORTURE.
How about that revisionist Conservative attempt, Chris? In fact, the whole Conservative party has been on a revisionist "Save the Legacy" tour for the last 6 months!
Shameful. And silly, that you buy into it, but nobody here is even the least bit surprised by that, lol!
HEY, HOW ABOUT YOUR HERO SEAN HANNITY WUSSING OUT ON HIS PLEDGE TO BE WATERBOARDED? I"LL BET HE GOT "EDUCATED" ON IT OFFSCREEN, HUH? KIETH OLBERMAN VOWED TO PLEDGE $1,000 A SECOND FOR HOW LOG HE COULD STAND IT.
IF IT WASN'T "TORTURE" WHY IS HE SKEEERED?!?!?! "
daviddelker wrote on May 4, 2009 2:20 PM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on May 4, 2009 2:09 PM:
The contortions through which you twist the definition of waterboarding to claim it isn't torture is sheer self-serving sophistry
BTW, just to be sure I was using the word correctly, I checked the definition of "sophistry:" Specious but fallacious reasoning; employment of arguments which are intentionally deceptive.
That applies here in SPADES.
While we're at it, let's take a look at some definitions of "torture" --
Severe or excruciating pain or suffering (of body or mind); or anguish, agony, or torment; the infliction of such, particularly for the purpose of forcing an accused or suspected person to confess, or an unwilling witness to give evidence or information.
According to the official definition of the United Nations Convention Against Torture:
"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."
It applies. Very simple. "
chris van note wrote on May 4, 2009 1:06 PM:
" Chris, are you SERIOUSLY still confused about waterboarding, or are you just bored and trying to stir the pot?!
Chris--WE, THE USA, HAVE PROSECUTED PEOPLE FOR WATERBOARDING IN THE PAST!!!
American soldiers were prosecuted for waterboarding in the Spanish American war in 1898.
*One soldier was, a Major Edwin Glenn was court-martialed and sentenced to 10 years hard labour for waterboarding an insurgent in the Philippines.
After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war during the Tokyo WAR CRIMES trials. THOSE soldiers were EXECUTED!
*Of course Karl, in his revisionist liberal histry, failed to note that this was far from the only conduct at issue; the soldier was also charged with having engaged, over a sustained period of time, in “beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; … burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward.”
Waterboarding is coersive and frightening, but torture? I think not.
No lasting physical or mental effects. No scars, no broken bones, 10 seconds of fear...that we used on 3 terrorists. "
karl the 2nd wrote on May 4, 2009 12:21 PM:
As far as Obama, I would as well if it was proven that he had foreknowledge and an opportunity or means to stop it.
But let's get something straight--I would beat the drums like a wild aborigine to see the actual members of the Bush Administration tried FIRST, with respect to prioritizing matters. And then, when the guilty were still swinging from the gallows, then I would do a secondary trial to punish the collaborators to a lesser degree.
Ever read "Justice at Nuremberg" David? The trials should follow exactly the same models. With the same caveats and rules--committing an illegal act because they were "just following orders" would be no excuse.
You might consider yourself to have morals or integrity, david, but your very act of excusing and endorsing Torture completely demolishes that euphemistic fantasy. "
vic wrote on May 4, 2009 9:05 AM:
The USA does. After World War II, we convicted and executed Japanese soldiers for waterboarding US soldiers. "
Farmer's Gal wrote on May 4, 2009 8:45 AM:
daviddelker wrote on May 4, 2009 7:09 AM:
daviddelker wrote on May 4, 2009 7:07 AM:
Oa wrote on May 4, 2009 4:58 AM:
Torture doesn't work as a method of getting to the truth. When the U.S. tortures all it does is send a signal to "the other guys" that torture is an OK thing to do. That probably doesn't bother us folks staying home, but I sure bet it matters to our soldiers who are captured by "the other guys".
'Nuff said. "
karl the 2nd wrote on May 3, 2009 10:01 PM:
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding "
karl the 2nd wrote on May 3, 2009 9:58 PM:
Anyone--ANYONE--who knew that Torture in the form of waterboarding was happening should be prosecuted as a war criminal.
ANYONE.
David, you should thank the country for us "whiny Liberals" because apparently, we seem to be the only ones left with any sense of morals and ethics?! I mean, for sure the Republiscums have none, and the Religious Right has LONG since lost any semblance of them. "
The Bone wrote on May 3, 2009 8:12 PM:
daviddelker wrote on May 3, 2009 5:18 PM:
brew1234 wrote on May 3, 2009 4:41 PM:
karl the 2nd wrote on May 3, 2009 4:31 PM:
That's pretty weak, even by Conservative standards. Hey, why not just nuke the entire Middle East--that would clean things up nicely then, wouldn't it? It could potentially save many lives of "people who you know",
apparently, you're willing to live with being of the same low character as the "enemy", and see no moral distinction between THEIR methods and what SHOULD be our--or our limits, perhaps?
"Amazing!" is right! "
Farmer's Gal wrote on May 3, 2009 3:51 PM:
It IS like the witch thing -- if she drowns then she must have been innocent! "
daviddelker wrote on May 3, 2009 3:12 PM:
karl the 2nd wrote on May 3, 2009 3:11 PM:
karl the 2nd wrote on May 3, 2009 3:10 PM:
No, I would NOT torture someone in ANY situation--information gathered under torture is NOTORIOUSLY unreliable. Just ask all the "witches" who were burned at the stake by the Church after they were accused by tortured "heretics".
You, and everyone else who advocates Torture-as-policy is of course, simply skeeered, like a little kid who hides from monsters under the bed. You cannot imagine a reasonable, mature response to a threat, so you go in for the most primordial, the most base, degrading, injurious lashing-out that you can imagine--without realizing that you would be creating your own horror in your reality.
LOL--"emotional crap"=Conservative-speak for "making a great point with a compelling argument", LMFAO! You must be corresponding with Chris, huh?
"In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said. "--from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html
Sorry, david--you're not going to win this argument no matter how "emotional" you get on it. Waterboarding is Torture, and we are harboring War Criminals here in America who should be prosecuted for it, or Americans like you and I will bear the shame of it for decades, no matter which side we're on. "
brew1234 wrote on May 3, 2009 1:38 PM:
daviddelker wrote on May 3, 2009 1:09 PM:
daviddelker wrote on May 3, 2009 1:06 PM:
bassistlearningdrums wrote on May 3, 2009 12:36 PM:
Example:
band has to sell 50 tix @ $5 per ticket.
venue has 10 bands that evening. Each band plays for 45 minutes. Assuming all bands have fans to watch, which they only stay long enough to see the band they bought tickets for. That is 500 people in the venue, good night for the bar owners. Say 2 drink minimum, $7 per drink, $7000 in drinks. Now the "booking agent" known as a VULTURE takes in $2500 from hard working "musicians". He probably keeps at least half of it, for doing NOTHING!
I guess I am in the wrong business!!
Advice is: NEVER PAY TO PLAY!!!
I have an audition for the classic rock band this week. I will let you know how it goes!! Out to do some Yardwork with my girl! Have a GREAT DAY! "
Farmer's Gal wrote on May 3, 2009 12:29 PM:
It is an absolute FACT that people who turned out to be entirely innocent have been detained and tortured at GITMO because some macho jerk decided without a trial that the person was "probably" guilty and went ahead with the detainment without charges and the torture.
If it were your son, and he were innocent, would you still uphold the torture of "suspected" terrorists? If so, you are one sick puppy and should check yourself into a mental hospital. "
wassup wrote on May 3, 2009 9:24 AM:
karl the 2nd wrote on May 3, 2009 2:55 AM:
" Karl---is blowing yourself up in a crowd of innocent people a war crime?
OF COURSE IT IS--WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY WE DON'T CONDUCT OURSELVES THE SAME MANNER AS "THEM"!!!
Also, david, I don't think you've been following the REAL news stations, have you? The most useful information, and the ones that actually led to results, were obtained BEFORE certain people were waterboarded. You've either conveniently overlooked this fact, or you are honestly ignorant of it--not surprising, considering what/who I suspect to be your sources?
When certain subjects were subjected to Torture, they actually have been reported to have "clammed up".
How would we get information from them?
I'll be honest, david; I don't kno; I'm not an FBI interrogator--but I certainly would NOT torture them, NOR would I trust any information obtained under torture, because it is information that is offered for one reason alone--to stop the torture.
Honestly--I'm somewhat amazed at how obtuse and short-sighted people like you are about this subject. "
daviddelker wrote on May 2, 2009 9:38 PM:
daviddelker wrote on May 2, 2009 9:36 PM:
daviddelker wrote on May 2, 2009 9:35 PM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on May 2, 2009 4:15 PM:
CayCntyLifer wrote on May 2, 2009 3:15 PM:
karl the 2nd wrote on May 2, 2009 2:18 PM:
karl the 2nd wrote on May 2, 2009 2:14 PM:
Chris--WE, THE USA, HAVE PROSECUTED PEOPLE FOR WATERBOARDING IN THE PAST!!!
American soldiers were prosecuted for waterboarding in the Spanish American war in 1898.
After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war during the Tokyo WAR CRIMES trials. THOSE soldiers were EXECUTED!
In 1983, the Justice Department prosecuted a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies for waterboarding prisoners to get them to confess to crimes. The deputies were sentenced to four years in prison and the sheriff got a 10-year sentence.
SERIOUSLY CHRIS-- "
Farmer's Gal wrote on May 2, 2009 12:23 PM:
Supposed effectiveness of torture does not change the FACT that it IS torture.
If we are going to claim that we are morally superior to those against whom we fight, we can't sink to their level without being hypocrites. If we torture our captives, then we are just as much scum as they are, whether it is an effective means of getting information or not. It is still torture, and we are still hypocrites.
Period. "
chris van note wrote on May 2, 2009 11:46 AM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on May 2, 2009 10:54 AM:
There is a law, and there are more pending, that insist that a person stop to see what they hit -- this after the case outside Rochester where not one but THREE vehicles ran over a young woman and not one of them stopped. Two of them stopped further down the road to see if there was any damage to the vehicles, but none went back to see what they'd hit, and one even reported that they thought they'd hit a deer. If they'd gone back to check, they'd see they'd hit a a young woman, not an animal at all.
I hope they pass it. Don't know how they will enforce it, but I suppose it becomes an additional charge when a reckless driver is picked up for something worse.
Karl -- you gave me a pretty good chuckle on that one. Growing up without TV, I nonetheless have misty and faded memories of seeing that movie somewhere, perhaps a grandparent's house -- and you right -- that character is creepier than the Burger King guy! "
CayCntyLifer wrote on May 2, 2009 10:02 AM:
The point is that people probably don't stop because they assume that the animal they hit is dead... my dog wasn't, but maybe he would have been left to die in a ditch if that woman hadn't stopped. Please make sure your pets have the proper collars and tags, it can save their lives. "
karl the 2nd wrote on May 2, 2009 9:31 AM:
--mmmm....sounds like someone with a "vigilante complex"?!
Does anyone picture "anonymous" as that shrew-like black-clad "child catcher" with the pointy nose from "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang"? "
teacher1 wrote on May 2, 2009 7:02 AM:
anonymous wrote on May 2, 2009 1:05 AM:
The Bone wrote on May 1, 2009 8:52 PM:
karl the 2nd wrote on May 1, 2009 12:41 PM:
I tell ALL My students to stop thinking that people want to hear their crummy originals--you have to play cover music for several years before you even know how to write and arrange a song properly. It's no different than learning to paint or cook--you have to imitate and "intern" so to speak, in order to get a feel for applying your own creativity effectively.
That original band will go nowhere. They will play the same small 2 rooms--the two free teenage venues in town, and maybe an odd "something-palooza" over the next year. And they won't get paid.
These young bands don't realize that they're helping to destroy the live music scene by playing their crappy noise-that-passes-for-music. People who go out to a club and drink after work don't want to listen to noise that they've never heard before--they want to hear what's on the classic rock stations, stuff that they grew up with, and can sing along to. The only ones who want to hear the originals are the band members' poor girlfriends who have to tag along, and of course, mom, dad, and aunt (insert name here).
Bar owners want bands who put arses in seats--and keep them there to drink--where they make their money; off the bar receipts. These original bands take their underaged-crowd out the door as soon as they finish their pathetic 20-minute set. There is NO incentive or reason for a bar owner to hire them.
Good luck, and good for you for having the wisdom to choose well. "
anonymous wrote on May 1, 2009 11:19 AM:
bassistlearningdrums wrote on May 1, 2009 11:07 AM:
" I haven't eaten fast food in about 7-8 years, but if I did, I would have stopped eating there just because of that nightmarish stalker-serial killer-looking "King" mascot that they have.
I thought the same. And people thought the HamBurgular was scary.
On a different note, I have 2 band auditions this coming week. One is originals, which can be fun. The other is classic rock. The classic rock band has a lot of cool songs. I opt for that one, because I need to earn some cash. So it looks like my afternoon will be spent dusting my bass off. It has been about 2 months since I played it! Black Sabbath and Iron Maiden to warm up, then Talas and Jaco Pastorius to focus!!! Have a Great weekend all! "
irritated wrote on May 1, 2009 6:51 AM:
The Bone wrote on May 1, 2009 5:39 AM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on Apr 30, 2009 5:36 PM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on Apr 30, 2009 5:34 PM:
Send me an e-mail, cm -- how'd that court date go? Are you safer now? "
karl the 2nd wrote on Apr 30, 2009 4:27 PM:
Easily and unquestionably the WORST-looking corporate mascot in the history of marketing. I hope I never actually see it in public, because I wouldn't know if I could stop myself from attacking it and thrashing it like Bugs Bunny did to that set of bagpipes on the Scotsman, when he thought it was "attacking that little old lady in the skoyt". lol! "
cm wrote on Apr 30, 2009 4:09 PM:
cm wrote on Apr 30, 2009 4:06 PM:
justventing: alot of places have started charging for water (tap)--some say the droughts/some say the cups/some say simply the cost of water has gone up.
I havent been to BK in a long time, but it doesnt surprise me they would start charging as other restaurants do. "
daviddelker wrote on Apr 30, 2009 3:16 PM:
CayCntyLifer wrote on Apr 30, 2009 2:25 PM:
justventing wrote on Apr 30, 2009 1:57 PM: