Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Living wages are needed

May 5, 2013

To the editor: I have seen a few stories recently concerning a lack of good, drug-free employees. I think this paints local workers in an unfair, highly-biased light....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(121)

maverick

May-30-13 10:46 PM

Chetsre....DITTO...

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RPG0340

May-30-13 1:26 PM

Chester, Maverick brought up the "military industrial complex" and the conversation degraded from there. If you don't like the conversation, don't read it or ask HS for your money back that you paid to join the site. That's right, it's free. So... Bug off.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Chester05

May-29-13 5:41 AM

The "Post a Comment" section... also known as Maverick vs RPG0340 Fight Night! I mean come on you two, this article is about living wages. NOT Ray Lewis or a military academy or your beliefs of one another's patriotism or even... wait for it, the Constitution. It's about wages... remember that thing someone wrote about before you two went off on a tangent? Sheesh.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

maverick

May-28-13 12:54 PM

By the way I am pro-American but our leadership across the board *****. I am not anti-military. I respect the men and women who make the sacrifices that is demanded of them. I just have a low opinion of those who send these young people into harms way for profiteers. THe two Bush Wars did nothing to stop terrorists. Thoses wars just made friends of the administration even wealthier. Patriotism is more than bombing other countries into oblivion.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

maverick

May-28-13 12:48 PM

rpg they refer to me as comtade because they thinkI question or challenge capitalism and our government but they don't realize I am criticizing or questioning the people who are manipulating and using the systems to feather their nests at our expense. People who work for the CIA have the same resume specific background as a general so given what u think is a narrow field to find employment should a retired CIA agent be allowed to go to work for say Iran or Pakistan. They would be hugely employable and after all they couldn't get a job hear teaching because we already have enough trainers at Langley. Will you quit with these athlete comparisons Ray Lewis probably has a 2 digit IQ you can't compare him to a general.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RPG0340

May-28-13 12:28 PM

Let me ask you this. Ray Lewis is retiring from the NFL. Do you believe he has a chance of getting hired on at The Golf Channel to cover the PGA tour?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RPG0340

May-28-13 12:25 PM

Maverick, others do not call you "comrade mav" for no reason. They do that because some of your views are very anti-American, and anti-military. This argument is no different. Do you know how many positions are open at our military academies? Not many. Who makes a better advisor, someone that knows every aspect of the military or some 25 year old with an MBA just out of grad school that until 4 weeks ago was living in mommy's basement?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

maverick

May-27-13 6:55 PM

C'mon you can't be that out of touch with reality. These generals are some of the most employable people in society. They have moved up thru the ranks of the military learning a multitude of skills and responsibilities. The very least the could is teach at military academies. But regardless it is totally unethical to go to work as a lobbyist or military weapons salesman for a corporation that you were involved with in arms and supplies negatiations while in the service of this country it reaks of you scratch my back and when you retire I' scratch your back. And your insane effort to compare athletes broadcasting games after their career is ridiculous and totally irrelevant to this discussion. You got to do more than this to defend your blind faith in generals.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RPG0340

May-25-13 10:06 PM

What do you expect a retiring general to do? Most of these guys retire in their 50's. Where else are they employable? "Hi, I'm Mr. X, I'm a retired general." "What did you do during the first 20+ working years of your life Mr. X?" "Well, I formulated battle plans, to attack and kill enemy forces in Iraq and Afganistan." "So, how does that translate to managing our new golf ball factory?" Do you get my point? What else do you expect them to do? Do you get angry that former pro athletes take jobs as sports reporters, sports agents if they have the education? I do question my leaders, just not in the same manner that you do. 9/11 was islam attacking the USA, not an inside job.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

maverick

May-25-13 8:17 PM

rpg it is not tresonous to question our leaders. Our Constitution demand that we question and monitor our government. !.2 trillion dollars unaccounted for and there has not been an investigation...ludicrous and criminal. There is a history of profiteering in war but very few investigations and follow up. What I am saying is not critical of your conservatism but your blind faith in people you know very little about that gives them a free pass to do anything with impunity is contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Do you realize that over 80% of retiring generals take jobs with military contractors or lobbyists who represent the contractors. This is insane. I have many conservative views but I won't bklindly defend anyone to further my ideals that also is contray to the intent of 0ur constitution.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RPG0340

May-25-13 6:16 PM

If you are content with holding treasonous views, that is your right. I'm saying that our men and women in uniform are heroes, and the generals that lead them are as well. It is not blind faith, they are human, but I cannot believe that our military leaders would sell out for money.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

maverick

May-25-13 6:01 PM

Being American does not require blind faith in any leader military or otherwise. That is just plain foolish. And doing so doesn't earn you credentials as a good American. I am withholding my opinion as to who is responsible for 911 until they realease at least one video from the 87 vantage points of the Pentagon that show a clear picture of a commercial jet having impact with the Pentagon. I don't have blind faith in anyone in our government. Bush rounded up the bin laden family and flew them out on the same day. WHY?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RPG0340

May-24-13 8:09 PM

Because I am an American, I believe that the generals sent to lead the most powerful military on the planet do so with honor. I cannot believe the those men would sell their souls (and sacrifice their honor) for money. I'm a conservative, being so does not make me a republican by default. Do you believe we were attacked on 9/11 or not? Personally, if I was in charge, I'd have nuked Kabul on 9/12. I'd also have bin dirtbag's family rounded up and flown into the atlantic ocean instead of across it after their assets had be seized of course.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

maverick

May-24-13 2:09 PM

Electronic or actual cash in this day and age is irrelevant. It still represents wealth, as well as taxpayer dollars. Did ou check out Smedley Butlers comments on corporate instigated war? I didn't think so. Telling the truth about Bush isn't bashing. I believe taht Obama is not good for this country but that doesn't excuse what the dumbest president in history did with his phony war on terrorism. See, because I don't trust Democrats or republicans makes it easy for me to be objective. You don't enjoy the same psosition because you think if you admit a republican is dirty you think that it trashes the entire conservative movement. But what does trash their movement is supporting crooked politicians who happaen to be republicans as well as democrats. This type of blind faith makes it impossible for Americans to find common ground. For you to refuse to think that a general in the US military would choose money over honor is shortsighted and naive.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RPG0340

May-24-13 11:33 AM

Yes, I know how much 1.2 trillion is. I know it is a large enough amount that it is electronic because nobody saw the caravan of tractor trailers carrying it from DC. I knew about the "missing money." Just because it happened does not mean I have an explaination as to why it is missing? Also, as to me questioning if it is "missing" or not I mean it went somewhere, like I said, it is electronic, it's anyones guess. It is shady but that is the problem with paper money and electronic currency. You aren't going to find 1.2t under someone's bed. My problem with your theories is that it is more blame Bush truther bullcrap.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

maverick

May-23-13 1:26 PM

rpg says:So, 1.2 trillion dollars went missing. I understand that. That is well known. Now he says:I do not know why 1.2 trillion went missing, or even if it went missing at all. Do you know how much 1.2 trillion is? How can u even suggest it was for a pending attack. Since you still believe that the Pentagon wouldn't place troops in harms way for oil companies I would like you to Google Gen. Smedley Butler, the most decorated marine in history and see what he says.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RPG0340

May-23-13 11:43 AM

I do not know why 1.2 trillion went missing, or even if it went missing at all. That is anyone's guess 1.2 trillion dollars is not a tangible asset, it is electronic. Perhaps it was in preparation for a pending attack that they had information of yet lacked key information to prevent. I do not know. Soddomite heussein had and would use wmd. Heussein's Iraq was a terrorist nation, just like Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Yemen, and Saudi Arabia.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

maverick

May-22-13 5:17 PM

Rpg u admit that the Pentagon went south with 1.2 trillion dollars but u still think that the generals r not corrupt. Placing troops in harms way for the profits of oil companies and war contractors is corruption at its worst. I admit that there were chemicals weapons in Iraq in the 1980s because the United States supplied many of them. But in the early 1990s the U.N. destroyed the weapons found. Others found were outdated and in the late 1990s their investigation determined that Iraq had no more weapons of mass destruction but Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld ignored that information and created false information that later was exposed as false because no WMDs were found also it was determined that there were no Al-Quida in Iraq until after we invaded. Have you not been paying attention since the 1980s. By the way I am not mad. I learned as a father when my son was growing up that immaturity spawns dumb arguments and that stubborness stops people from admitting errors.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RPG0340

May-22-13 2:49 PM

So, 1.2 trillion dollars went missing. I understand that. That is well known. Do you know that on 9/10/01 the talirag assassinated the leader of the Northern Alliance Amhed Shah Massoud in preparation for the attack that was sure to come in response to the attack on the USA. I do not believe that a general would sell out his men for money. Also, now you are admitting that Iraq had a chemical, nuke, bio, weapons program. So you are retracting your "false pretense" statement? I'm not making you play a game. You are doing that by choice, just as I am answering by choice. No need to get mad.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

maverick

May-21-13 10:24 PM

You are placing the Generals who took an oath above suspicion. Why do you think Eisenhower warned us. He warned us becaiuse the military industrial complexx is a marrige of Corporations to the Pentagon. The Pentagon it was announced by Rumsfeld the day before 911, could not account for 1.2 trillion dollars of taxpayers money and you think these generals are above reproach. Noe if you want to continue palying this game quit asking silly questions that you answer with fairtale gullibility.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

maverick

May-21-13 10:18 PM

rpg I am gatting tired of playing for the record with you. Try reading "A Poisonous Affaid". Here is what I know about halabja,...What is certain is that a very wide range of countries and companies supplied Iraq with the necessary equipment, materials and expertise for its chemical, nuclear and advanced weapons programmes. One well-sourced report suggests that more than 200 different companies in at least 26 countries were implicated in arming Saddam Hussein's regime. These include 86 German companies, 21 French, 19 British, 18 American, 17 Austrian, 12 Italian and 11 Swiss. Other countries known to have supplied the Iraqi dictator include Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Greece, India, Romania, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Spain, China, Yugoslavia, South Korea, North Korea, Cuba, Denmark, Finland and Norway. The Soviet Union and conservative Arab states also supplied substantial military and financial aid. Did you also know that America tried to sitch the blame on Ir

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RPG0340

May-21-13 12:10 PM

Maverick, for the record answer the following questions. Do you believe in the truther movement? Have you ever heard of a town called Halabja? Where do you believe soddomite heussein's chemical weapons went? Do you believe those chemical weapons are being put to use now? Do you really believe that the generals that planned these campagin would put their men into harm's way, in defiance of all that they believe, against their oath, to serve a business, instead of their country?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

maverick

May-20-13 11:13 PM

Hagred, nice try but neither Congress nor the American people would have supported the mass bombings and killings if Bush announced we were going into Iraq to kill a dictator. Without 911 that war could not have happened and ironically Hussein not only didn't have weapons of mass destruction he had no ties to Al-Quaida. And if Al-Quida was in all those other place why didn't Bush pursue them there. He said we will hunt u down wherever you are. U should have called him and told him they were in all these other places. Now to answer ur dumb questions. The pipeline is not finished because Afghanastan stands in the way as they did when the soviets tried to destroy them. But the pipelines in Asia are awaiting the availability to the Caspian ports. Who killed more people Capitalism or Communism. Do you have the answer and proof? All I know is that we have supplied the weapons for the majority of deaths in the mideast, Africa and Croatia. Let's see we poked our nose into Korea and Viet Nam

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

May-20-13 7:00 PM

"There were no Taliban in Iraq until we went their and drew them there."

There were Al-Qaeda in America, there were Al-Qaeda in Britian, there were Al-Qaeda in Spain, there were Al-Qaeda in Italy, there were Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, there were Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, but there was not one in Iraq. Right mav?

"We went in under a false pretense of Weapons of mass destruction."

No. We went into Iraq to remove a dictator who, for TEN YEARS had defied UN Resolutions as punishment for his invasion of Kuait, for one.

mav, you haven't ansered the questions to support your claim:

mav, is that pipeline finished? If not, what percentage is complete?

And this one:

For the record mav, which is responsible for more deaths, Capitalism, or Communism?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

maverick

May-20-13 5:30 PM

Rpg I see that you know as much about the phony Iraq War as you do about engineering. There were no Taliban in Iraq until we went their and drew them there. We went in under a false pretense of Weapons of mass destruction. The invasion of Iraq was planned before 911 as was Afghanastan. It was about oil gas and pipelines. I gave you source for that information but evidently you ignored it. The connection between Bush/Cheney, the oil concerns and even Halliburton are easy dots to connect. Why do you think that Halliburton is heavily immersed in the local shale exploitation. How convenient was it that Dick Cheney former CIA of Halliburton in a private meeting exemted Halliburton from the clean drinking water act to facilitate fracking with dangerous and caustic chemicals.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 121 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: