See complete forecast
You are not logged in. (Log in • Create account)
20 May 2010
at 3:25 p.m.
Some of you are jumping to conclusions about what nudity means. Nude men/teenagers together does not have any correlation with homosexuality whatsoever. I highly doubt these teenage boys are gay. In fact, it might not have anything to do with sexuality at all. Nudity, and societies’ reactions to it, is cultural. Different cultures react differently to nudity. In some cultures nudity is quite acceptable. Just because family members are nude together does not mean anything sexual is going on. Some Americans of the more prudish persuasion get a bit too worked up about naked people. Different ages react definitely also, and as the letter mentions, I remember having no problem skinning dipping when I was a teen. Now I would definitely think twice.
I’m not saying people don’t need to be careful in these situations. I understand the concerns. And in “American culture” (if there is such a thing) nudity in public or around others is at least viewed as bad taste. So although this behavior may not “normal,” it’s not necessarily harmful.
7 April 2010
at 9:57 a.m.
This might be the most ignorant letter to the editor I have ever read. Yes, that’s quite a feat considering some letters we’ve seen in this paper. Here we have two people who don’t know the first thing about Islam actually having the audacity to lecture Pastor Bob Woods on the topic? What a complete and utter joke.
Two Qurans? Yes, a second Quran which over a billion Muslims have managed to keep secret from absolutely everybody over several millennia! Bwahahahahahaha!!!! Sure, no problem! That’s the most ludicrous thing I’ve heard in years. And you know this because a Christian missionary told you? Bwahahahahahaha!! It must be true then. The “9/11 was an inside job” conspiracy theory pales in comparison to the stupidity of this theory.
I would recommend you go to Pastor Wood’s discussions about the Quran and actually learn something. However, I’m quite certain that would do no good. You are way too ignorant to listen to any facts that might challenge your uninformed and intolerant world view.
5 November 2009
at 3:58 p.m.
While you’re right that people are affected differently als362, but there is some reasonable range which cannot be exceeded. You cannot smoke pot on Monday and still be high 24 hours later on Tuesday. It’s not improbable, it’s impossible.
Or maybe you’re contending that I can get drunk on Friday night, not drink anything else the whole weekend and still show up to work drunk on Monday? Are you saying that’s possible because everyone reacts differently?
27 October 2009
at 7:06 p.m.
Gingrich's suggestions are good. I snagged Sammy Morris that week too, and had to start him. Then he blew out his knee during his first carry. That smarted.
No doubt Greene would be a huge pick up, and Mike Wallace is worth a look too if you're hurting at WR. You'd have to be pretty desperate to use Alex Smith, but he could do alright with a easy match-up on a bye week. Hakeem Nicks was hot 3 weeks ago. He's long gone on many waiver wires. If not, yeah, you need to grab him.
There's a decent chance Jamal Charles would be available in some leagues. You'd want to grab him, as LJ looks to be exiled. As for my sleeper, Justin Forsett should be getting a lot more touches as the season wears on. I had Antonio Bryant available at WR in my league, who has some upside if Tampa's offense goes from horrible to just bad.
14 October 2009
at 12:42 p.m.
Steve: Raising issue with decisions your government makes most definitely does not make one a hypocrite just because they enjoy living in that community. This nation was founded on democracy, just like Moffat was largely founded on resource use. Does that make you a hypocrite for condemning Mr. Morris for exercising his democratic right to voice his decent?
Just curious, did you support the tea partiers? Are you also opposed to criticism of Obama? Why is speaking out a good thing when they agree with your cause but bad when they don't? Could that be hypocrisy?
12 July 2009
at 9:38 a.m.
Someone got seriously hurt, and I'm supposed to care about this woman's children who miss their dog? Are you joking?
This terrifies me. My wife walks around this area. It could have been her, and it could have been much worse, as I'm not sure she could have jumped a fence. Dogs that could kill do not deserve a second chance.
Eastsidebonnie, I agree with you about on thing: the owners should also be held accountable. The dogs not only should have been put down, but criminal charges should be brought on their owners. I hope at least David brings a civil suit and gets major paid.
I hope you get well soon Mr. Grabowski.
15 May 2009
at 10:06 a.m.
Wise words from Vince Matthews. Not only about how we'll continue to need coal and how we should be considering more nuclear energy, but how folks with rose-colored glasses think oil grows on trees and we don't need to bother aggressively transitioning to alternative energy technologies. You guys want to learn something? Watch this documentary: “A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash” (http://www.oilcrashmovie.com/). You don't have to agree with all the points raised in this movie, but many of their arguments are indisputable. If you don't want to rent the movie, Google “peak oil” and do some reading. Again, I'm not buying into the most extreme views that within the next 10 years we'll see the apocalypse, but no one can dispute the basic premise of peak oil.
24 April 2009
at 11:35 a.m.
GrandFutures, you state that, “Those who supply the alcohol and the place for its consumption go without punishment.” As DV8 has shown, we have laws on the books covering these actions. So, if they are going without punishment, the law isn't the problem; the enforcement of the laws is the problem. So why add yet another law that won't be enforced? Why aren't we advocating that the current laws be enforced?
22 April 2009
at 12:53 p.m.
GrandFutures, those are simple questions which don't address the issue here. You mean to insinuate that “hey, unless you're a degenerate feeding your child alcohol, you should support this ordinance!” As Craig_gal has maintained quite elegantly, you can't just paint people who oppose this ordinance as people who support underage drinking.
I still need a question answered about how this ordinance is different from our existing laws. Als362 wrote, “When adults refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and children, then other things must be done to take control of these situations. This ordinance would allow that action to take place.” HOW exactly would this ordinance allow that action to take place? Can't parents already be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor when they purchase alcohol for their children? Aren't there already steps the city can take against businesses that break the law?
See, adding more laws that do the same things as laws already on the books just doesn't work. I mean, this general “law enforcement” approach to underage drinking obviously isn't working if all you still think there's a serious problem in Craig. So what's your proposal? More of the same. If it hasn't worked up to now, what makes you think it will work this time? Oh, so we tweak a few things and layer on more laws, but essentially, your approach to this problem hasn't changed at all. Parents know what's illegal and kids know what's illegal. They still do it. The recent issue in Craig you are discussing was a horrible tragedy, but are you seriously maintaining that that would not have happened if your ordinance was in place? No way do I buy that. This isn't going to help the problem.
Maybe we need to think out of the box on this one instead of pushing for more of the same strategy we've been trying for the last few decades without success.
20 April 2009
at 12:17 p.m.
Taxslave: good point about government vehicles. I don't see why they can't hang on to them for a few more years and repair any issues, just like the rest of us do. Even after the warrantee expires it got to be cheaper to repair them. Gov vehicles get a ton of use and wear and tear, though, so while 10 years is probably out of the question, I don't see a need for new vehicles after 3 years. 'Course someone who drives around in one all day might have a different opinion:
A consumption tax sounds like it has merit. Has it been proposed in Congress? Is anyone talking about it? Why isn't it taken seriously? Could everything be paid for by a consumption tax, even things like education?
Not being a business owner, I have no idea how high business property taxes are. Sounds like they're a real concern. I am a home owner though and I know property taxes are relatively low around here compared to many other places in America. My rich uncle in Chicago pays $1,700 a month in taxes on his house! That's almost twice my mortgage and more than I pay in taxes on my house all year.
or see results without voting.
This site is best viewed with
or the latest version of Internet Explorer
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Craig Daily Press. All rights reserved.