Comments by stitch0852
Page 1 of 6 | Next
Posted on September 28 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ya think!? Now if only those who have seen the light that this idiot is NOT presidential material can remember it until the next election...
Posted on August 7 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Johnson, can you guarantee my safety and the safety of those around me from the retributions of those who take "offense" at my opinions? Doubtful.
I have lived long enough in this world to have seen firsthand the changing attitudes. From a people who looked out for their neighbor to looking out for themselves. Those who are offended by anyone who dares to speak against the beliefs they hold dear. Unfortunately, many may act against those who dare to exercise their right to an opinion.
If I must do so using a "screen name" so that those around me remain safe from possible harm, then so be it. Until everyone can accept that opinions are like elbows (most everyone has two), then screen names will always be a necessary evil.
Freedom of speech is not always free, Mr. Johnson. Many times people are made to suffer for exercising their free speech right, usually at the hands of someone who disagreed with what they said.
We do not live in a tolerant society. What is tolerated is solely dictated by the majority. Minorities are persecuted, ridiculed, and otherwise demeaned. In some instances, the demeaning may turn violent.
I notice this is your first post here, under what seems to be a real name. is this your first time posting? Or did you/do you also post under a screen name to topics more volatile than this one?
Until such time as it is safe to freely and openly speak opinions, I must remain Stitch.
Posted on August 3 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
GMA reported yesterday morning that not only are the customers trading in the cars supposed to get this "Clunker" fund (for whatever they have approved for) but they are also supposed to get the scrap value of the car they turn in. Conveniently, dealers don't seem to be mentioning this too much....
It was also reported that many dealers around the country are forcing customers to sign that they will either return the car or pay the money themselves if the government does not approve the fund. I believe that if the government does not pay the person trading should get their car back. Not only are they out what they traded, they also lose out on trading in for another car without the rebate deal and/or using it for transportation.
This is another flawed program, implemented poorly, and it was supposed to run through November?!! People are having doubts about the security of their employment, why would they want to take on more debt knowing they may not be employed in the near future?
Now the stock market is 'recovering' somewhat. No chance the high sale of these cars could have something to do with it?
And don't forget they are also discussing the real chance that taxes will need to be raised to cover the outrageous spending Obama has been doing. Yet, when the banks were doing it, outrage prevailed, why isn't it now?
Those who think that extra $20 a week in their check is good, remember it when you find your taxes higher at the end of the year...
Democrats have performed poorly and there doesn't appear to be any chance for improvement.
To top it off, they keep discussing "health care reform" yet the only thing they seem to be interested in is health care coverage, or insurance. These are not the same thing! Health care reform should make standardized fees for certain things. An aspirin should not cost $7 each at a hospital when an entire bottle can be purchased for that!
And the hole this country is falling into gets deeper....
Who is happy with the "change" we have now?
Posted on August 1 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When a city is located at the intersection of TWO MAJOR interstates and cannot experience business growth the blame must lie somewhere!
Taxes and other fees paid by businesses is most likely a good starting point. A story in the Tribune a bit ago made mention to the sewage rates paid by businesses (with a special consideration given to Mrs. Gerry's) also go into play. If business cannot make money because of taxes/fees/debt they will incur by moving here, THEY WILL NOT COME HERE!
Why is it that Owatonna has experienced much better growth through the years yet they only have ONE INTERSTATE?!
The most obvious answer seems to be in the political leadership of the town.
Until people see the forest and the trees, Albert Lea will continue to decline (in spite of the lies stated by the school board to get referendums passed) without hope for a resurgence in population.
If you don't think so, here is a question:
Who, in their right mind, would pay for new lamp posts, installation, and fancy flags to hang from them, and then try to "save money" by not painting them!? Rusty posts do not look charming, they look unkempt and cheap and this opinion carries over. Once metal begins to rust, IT CONTINUES TO RUST! It doesn't magically reach a point where it stops until the post is gone!
Whoever approved that ridiculous waste of money (would have been better to paint), deserves to be run out of office in front of several hot buckets of tar and a pile of feathers!
Hopefully, when these rust off at the ground, the next poles will be better thought out and we will spend a few thousand dollars more to paint! PAINT IS CHEAP, POSTS GET EXPENSIVE!
How many businesses have looked at coming to AL this year alone and how many have actually come here? In the last five years? Ten?
The government looking for a convenient place to locate a medical facility (V.A. or other, do not remember exactly which) would find this a convenient location, it should be a no-brainer for them this close to IA and surrounding areas, yet this has not been decided (or has it and they aren't coming either?) WHY?
Denying a problem exists "SOMEPLACE" in the hierarchy of Albert Lea will not make the problem go away.
Posted on July 27 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
¿Si Habla Español? however when "in Rome" so to speak...
Posted on July 27 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All that said, however, there is only one way to prevent illegal immigrants:
Employers found with illegal immigrants on their payroll will immediately be found guilty, their business will be severely penalized. The penalties so severe that the business will most likely close.
This has a very serious repercussions, however. Legal residents employed may lose their jobs as well. So in punishing employers, the employees legally working will suffer.
However, when there are NO MORE JOBS for illegal immigrants, they most likely will stop coming.
As long as someone hires them, they will come.
Posted on July 27 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Guess it is a good thing that GMA was here earlier in the week? This most likely would not have gone over well on national TV?
That said, I think we should have immigration reform. We should make our illegal immigrant laws MATCH Mexico's. From what I have heard, they have much stricter laws for someone entering their country illegally. Yet their citizens believe it is acceptable to enter ours because we are easier, have more jobs, etc?
I firmly believe we should allow immigrants in accordance with national laws, etc. However, ILLEGAL is just that - against the law!
Against the law means no benefits, no work, no kidding! If you want to enter this country, follow the laws we have in place and enter when permitted to legally do so.
Entering illegally is the beginning of thumbing your nose to our laws. It continues when you have illegal immigrants who ram the school buses killing students, driving drunk, etc.
Granted, legal residents also do this, but they are also typically living permanently (in most cases) someplace where they can be found, not migrant.
LEGAL immigration I support. ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS I DO NOT.
I must follow the laws of this land and Mexico (if I were to decide to visit) citizens of other countries should be forced to follow our laws. This includes legally entering!
Posted on July 19 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
golddigger, EXACTLY, yet there seems to be a huge push to incorporate higher percentages of this into our gas whether we like it or not, whether our cars can handle it or not, and whether it is better for the environment or not.
It is almost as if Minnesota is saying "to h#%# with the consumer and the environment (because some cars may have worse emissions if they cannot burn this properly), we want to sell more ethanol crops!
Again, I sympathize with farmers, etc; but there comes a time when EVERYONE needs to be considered!
A flip "buy another car" isn't the answer either. With record job losses, folks are not guaranteed jobs from day-to-day and cannot afford to undertake another debt that may end up resulting in repossession of needed transportation.
Posted on July 19 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is anyone looking at the results these higher amounts will have on fuel economy and older cars?
I fully understand the economy and keeping farmers selling ethanol crops, etc.
However, who is thinking about consumers? Cars burning ethanol-based products get lower fuel economy that those burning larger gas to ethanol ratio fuels.
The gas prices still skyrocket based on the whims of investors based on possibly perceived issues (war, hurricane, etc).
I am not convinced these spikes would be higher if fuel had no ethanol in it at all. This based on living in a state that only recently (last 3-4 years) switched to ethanol. Our fuel prices were in line with the national averages!
What about consumers who cannot afford new cars and their current cars cannot run well on the higher ethanol blends?
I have two cars, one is 10 years old, the other 23 years old. Both have one thing I find irreplaceable...they are paid for, so trading for a newer model (and undertaking a huge car payment) is not an option. Need to save my money for the rising taxes now and in the future.
Seems to me a poor performing car forced to run fuel it cannot properly combust will increase pollutants in the air.
In addition, the higher concentration of alcohol products in gas will also raise temperatures whereby the fuel is affected in the colder winter months. That, or additional costs will be incurred for additives to combat this.
WHO IS THINKING ABOUT ALL OF THIS?
Remember, ethanol fuel does not allow water to settle as 100% gasoline did. Ethanol is water soluable meaning the water remains suspended in the fuel instead of settling to the bottom (because gasoline floats on water). As a result, our severe winter temperatures will begin to cause problems with frozen gas lines, etc. Alcohol mixes with water, it does not float on it.
This appears to be another case of someone watching out for their rice bowl, regardless of issues that may arise as a result of their actions.
Page 1 of 6 | Next
Posted on October 25 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't trust government now (since January 2009) and I do not trust vaccinations made hastily and then touted as being great.
Just like their forceful attempt to "fix" health care costs; their rush will leave huge loopholes to be exploited costing the program far more money than budgeted and many will be penalized for failing to obtain healthcare coverage when they still are unable to afford it.
FIX the health care costs. TAKE THE TIME, regardless of how long, to fix it right the first time. This B.S. of bipartisanship is fluff.
Make the costs affordable.
In the meantime, rushed vaccinations will not be admitted into my body....
On Are you going to get vaccinated for H1N1 influenza?