Taxation fight
In a day when both our national and state assemblies are polarized by partisan politics, it is somewhat refreshing to see the combined efforts of our local city representatives, regardless of party, working together to stave off the shameful attempt by the governor to raise the taxes in the three largest cities to accomplish his own cuts in general assistance at the state level.
Kudos to Mayor Cary Weston and his colleagues for standing together. Keep up the fight.
Ken Huhn
Bangor
Need answers
Terry Donnellan appears to have done some research on an environmental problem. Donnellan’s cited references and conclusion (Environmentally sustainable food?, BDN, April 24) doesn’t answer some basic questions.
The cited research warns, “animal manure and fertilizers used in growing feed for animals emit large amounts of nitrous oxide.” What about all those animals living in the wild? Does not their manure create large amounts of nitrous oxides as well? Does that mean we should get rid of all animals? Careful, we are animals as well.
Donnellan suggests we move to a vegan diet. Wouldn’t that require more fertilizers and land to grow feed for us animals? I would suggest it would unless we were to get rid of all the other animals.
The cited New York Times OpEd did not outline the method to use to convince all the lions, tigers, and bears (Oh my!) to switch over to Caesar salad. I looked very carefully.
Nor did the cited statistics on agricultural production differentiate between that used by meat production versus nonmeat production. It doesn’t indicate what the percentages would be for nonmeat production if we were to eliminate meat production. I think we should know that before killing all our animals.
Donnellan should include nuclear energy in the “pollution-free energy sources.” Consider a dark Maine winter night and no wind blowing. At 2 a.m. and all the USA in the dark, where would we get heat? Algae?
Jim Miller
Pittsfield
Ted Heads
The reality is the folks who don’t want Ted Nugent to play in Bangor are leftist, period. If we listed every singer who slammed a Republican, avoided the draft and slept with underage girls there’d be a lot fewer concerts in Bangor. If Ted Nugent was pulling for Obama in the upcoming election and slammed Romney we wouldn’t be having this problem.
Ray Bryant
Benedicta
Religious freedom
The Catholic Church is organizing a massive demonstration against President Obama’s attack on religion evidenced by his mandating that insurance companies cover not only contraceptives but abortion-inducing drugs. Apart from the immorality of the issue, the precedent set would ultimately marginalize religion in our country, a goal of liberal Democrats. Catholic bishops are calling all Catholics to the demonstration from June 21 to the July 4.
It is not contraceptives or abortion that is the issue. It is freedom of religion and sadly the attack is coming from our own government. The Catholic bishops, by refusing Obama’s mandate and risking arrest and imprisonment, are reminiscent of an earlier time. A time when the farmers in Lexington and Concord, Mass., encouraged by their Christian ministers, stood their ground against the advance of 400 British troops sent to enforce a different but equally unjust law. The event became known as “The shot heard round the world”. Two hundred British troops limped back to Boston and took a message back to England.
And now we are engaged in another dispute with a disreputable administration whose moral decline is staring us in the face every day as we discover that a dozen Secret Service agents brought prostitutes into their hotel rooms. Do you believe they are the exceptions? Then there’s the wastefulness of the U.S. General Services Administration’s extravaganza in Sin City and Michelle’s half million-dollar vacation.
Where does it end? It ends in the voting booth.
David Huck
Swanville
Portable playhouse
Dr. Edward and Sheila Harshman of Thomaston are seeking a tax abatement on their portable playhouse.
I heard of a similar occurrence here in Orrington some years back. The owner complained his 24-foot above-ground swimming pool should not be taxed as it was portable. Word of mouth has it that the tax assessor said, “Fine, fold it up and take it in each night and I will not charge you tax on it.”
Fred Eich
Orrington
David Huck, when I exercise my freedom of religion it means that I have freedom from your religion and vice versa.
All Freedom of religion means is that any and all religions have the freedom to operate without government interference. That has nothing to do with your personal choices.
What if my religion dictates I kill one infidel every fortnight? Or never hire an infidel for a job in my business?
Religious freedom is frequently restricted by laws; the contraception brewhaha is just another case.
I said the Freedom of Religion clause has no relationship to the individual actions but defines restrictions on the Government. Can the Government mandate restrictions on the Catholic Church directly in the case you mentioned? Even the Government will say it can’t.
The problem comes when the goalposts are moved one way or the other to include religious affiliates like hospitals etc. In the broadest sense of the term Freedom of Religion might include hospitals, the church says yes, the government says no. I see a Supreme Court case in the offing.
But nowhere, anywhere, does it say Freedom FROM Religion.
We already have laws that prohibit murder (which is a central tenet of my “religion”) and discrimination based upon religion in the workplace (another tenet). The latter is specifically relevant to this issue: as a business owner I can’t violate laws inconsistent with my religion. Thus, government is regulating the free practice of my religion.
Not at all. You are not your religion. Your business is not your religion. The catholic Church is a religion. Unitarian Universalists is a religion, Amish is a religion.
Of course your religion does not protect you from murder and of course you can’t violate laws with your business merely because you adhere to a particular faith.
Here is an example. A local thrift store was run out of a local church. People would drop off clothes and other items for people to pick up for next to nothing from the Church basement.
This small outfit expanded and moved from their location, still received donations but sold them outside their church family. Now it is a business that pays its employees therefore needs to collect sales tax. It is no longer a “church” function even though it may still consider itself such.
These are rules of law long established. There is nothing in this action that restricts Freedom Of Religion by the Government.
Who says that isn’t my religion. Even a religion of a handful of adherents qualifies. Is there a minimum standard for what qualifies as a religion protected under the first amendment? Number of adherents? Age?
I stand by my objection that Congress has indeed passed laws that prevents me from practicing central tenets of my religion. You may not consider my religion one worthy of protection, but that’s because you’re an infidel!:)
You are not your religion. You are not. You are an individual with rights to practice your Religion.
In the sixties a minister might not have been drafted for military service. So what happened?… suddenly there were any number of religions springing up and you could get your certificate as a minister in that church for $25.
That didn’t last long as the government rightly shut these things down.
I don’t know all of the requirements to qualify as a religion but I do know that you cannot merely say you are.
Sure you can, simply by saying so. Prove me wrong. Prove I don’t believe what I believe, that I am not what I think.
It doesn’t matter what “the government” thinks or does, that’s besides the point: What do YOU think? What do YOU do? What do YOU believe? I don’t care if I don’t have a licence to minister. Hasn’t stopped me yet. Government can’t tell me I can’t talk about what I believe in, because when it boils down to something, the government SHOULD NOT be issuing licenses to minister. That breaks the church and state clause! It’s a lead-in for more restrictions further down the road, watch. If they can regulate it, at all… It’s over.
Don’t be a reed shaken in the wind, or a wave that is tossed about in the sea.
Of course you have the right to speak what you believe and in that area you have the First Amendment to thank for it.
I have my God-given right to freedom of speech, with or without the First Amendment.
Didn’t know the government was in the business of defining what qualifies as a legitimate religion and whether it is allowed to restrict the free exercise thereof. Just because I haven’t registered my religion with the government doesn’t make it less real. As far as I can tell, the first amendment makes no effort to define what religions it deems worthy to protect.
“Not at all. You are not your religion. Your business is not your religion. The catholic Church is a religion. Unitarian Universalists is a religion, Amish is a religion.”
Dude, you’re wrong.
Ideas live in the minds of people, and manifest themselves in their actions. So yes, you are your religion. Everything you do, speaks volumes of what you truly believe. Ideas, by themselves, can’t DO anything. The Roman Catholic Church, is nothing more than a building with old men in it. It isn’t a religion any more than it is a building. Government is nothing more than the people who run it, because government by itself is nothing but empty court rooms and senseless scraps of paper. It’s like guns, being that the gun itself doesn’t actually kill anyone, it is merely the vehicle of intent that a person uses.
Sure, these things might be representative of what they signify, but again, they wouldn’t be there if the idea had not taken hold of a person’s mind and caused them to say and do things. We’ve come to the point that even now in this day and age we argue about things people said and did in times past, still making the same mistakes they did, simply because we’ve failed to see the real problem. (I’ll give you a hint, it isn’t Capitalism or Communism). No, WE are our own worst enemy.
Solomon was right, “All is vanity!”
Religion may live in your mind…. But I have a draw full of State sales tax exempt certificates with the names of 100 or so area churches in my filing cabinet that say you are wrong.
Oh right, because a piece of paper somehow makes it more real. Yup.
Minor point: “Amish” is not a religion. The Amish are followers of Jakob Ammann. Their religion; Mennonite or German Anabaptist.
Thanks… was just searching for different religions.
I think you and hophead are talking across one another.
I agree with you, Cheesecake, that there is no “freedom from religion” in the Constitution. Religious people, including cardinals, bishops, priests, pastors, ministers, rabbis, imams, monks, priestesses and gurus, have a right to express their opinions on moral and ethical issues, just like everyone else.
At the same time, hophead has a point — I don’t want someone else’s religion to tell me, under force of law, what I must do. For instance, if the government said women must wear burqas, or that all meat must be kosher, or that a particular religious view of Creation had to be taught in public school science classes, or that all Ten Commandments (“Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy,” for instance) be incorporated into federal law, that would infringe on the rights of people who did not share those religious perspectives, and we would clamor for freedom FROM those religious restrictions on our freedom. Then even you would demand freedom from religion, I expect.
My church supports the freedom for gays and lesbians to marry, but we are not allowed to perform legal wedding ceremonies for gay or lesbian couples, even though we can do it for straight couples. Our freedom of religion is being restricted in this case.
The issue of religiously-affiliated hospitals, as you note, could wind up in court. This might be considered a grey area.
I do of course enjoy Freedom from Religion by merely rolling over in bed for an extra hour of sleep every Sunday Morning. But that is not an enumerated right set down in the Constitution, that is my free choice. :)
Governments have always entertained tenets of the religion of the time within their set of laws and you may or may not like them… but in the US you have a right to lobby your government to change them.
Don’t get stuck on the word “from.” Freedom by definition includes it, as in exemption FROM external control or interference, or as in the power to determine action without restraint.
And because you interchangeably use the word “From” and “of” in the First Amendment you change the meaning of the entire Amendment. You would understand it better if you stuck to one word. The original. “of”
The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue, in 1995. Governement is not allowed to target any religion, but in making laws which affect everyone, it’s perfectly legal. The Catholics have joined the southern right wingers on this one, which is a shame.
Correct. Like murder is illegal for adherents of any faith…
Do you mean that American citizens don’t have the right to individual religious expression?
Not at all. All are welcome. But Freedom of Religion (protection from government interference) guarantees that you have the right to do so.
It is not a restriction on you but on the government.
Of course you understand that the government is of, for, and by the people.
Irrelevant in this context. The bill of rights is a list of restrictions placed on the government to protect the people.
If what you believe is true there would be no need for press freedom guarantees for instance. After all the press is “us” according to your theory therefore no need to protect press freedom.
“Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching” -Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Which does not in the least conflict with the First Amendment of The US Constitution at first glance.
The First Amendment (also) prohibits the making of any law impeding the free exercise of religion, among other things. If you wish to contend that this does not include an individual’s free exercise of religion, I do not care to argue it with you.
OK but the purpose of the The first Amendments is talking about what the GOVERNMENT may not do… not what the individual may or may not do. That is the whole purpose of the first 10 Amendments is all about restricting what the Government can and cannot do. If you cannot see how that guarantees your rights to freely exercise your religion OK… but I recommend a Constitution class and I reiterate the Constitution nowhere states that there is a “Freedom FROM Religion”. That is your fiction.
It doesn’t have to state it. There is a freedom of religious choices. A person can’t make their own religious choices if they’re having a religious belief set imposed on them. “Freedom from religion” is just a rephrasing of “freedom of religion.”
Not true. You cannot change a Constitutional Amendment on a whim… because you prefer the word “from” over the word “of”. You don’t get to pick and choose.
You’re arguing about the specific wording and you’re right, it does say “of.” However, in terms of what a “freedom of religion” actually means, you can’t have a freedom of without a freedom from. There is no mandate requiring an individual to have a religion. If you argue that there is no right to be free from religion, then you’re arguing that a person, while free to choose a religion, must still have a religion. That has never been the interpretation.
You have an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution and the purpose of the First Amendment. I did not say or subscribe to the argument you attribute to me. I never said that you don’t have the Freedom to choose or even ignore religion. You do. It’s just that is not what the first Amendment says or means while insuring that government not interfere with Religion.
Again, you’re arguing about the words. No one on here is trying to say that the Amendment actually reads, “freedom from religion.” No one said that, so what exactly is your point?
It seems to me you were the one arguing about words. In fact you said….”Freedom from religion” is just a rephrasing of “freedom of religion.” I disagree and so does the Constitution.
No. Everyone agrees with the Amendment says in terms of wording. Everyone except you is talking about concepts.
You mean like Freedom from Speech? Freedom from the press?
In terms of arguing with that one, I would say you’re beating a dead horse, but if I did then people might think I don’t like horses.
We’ll you’re wrong also. You think you can exchange words around in the Constitution because they suit you better in your argument. You can’t make this stuff up.
You have a can’t-see-the-forest-for-the-trees problem.
And you have a I-want -to- rewrite -the- Constitution-so-it-conforms-to-my -worldview-problem.
This is beginning to sound like an “angels on the head of a pin” discussion.
I could see how you would think that if it were merely semantic. It really isn’t. There is quite a bit of difference in the words Freedom from Religion and Freedom of religion.
It lies in the nature of the First 10 Amendments which were passed to protect certain rights of the people from Government intrusion. Read em.
The very first right of the people the founders chose was to protect religion from the government.
Tell me is there Freedom from Speech? Freedom from the press?
You would lose your case if you plead it before the Supreme Court. They would most certainly say that the 1st Amendment guarantees Americans the right to freedom from control by a religious body.
Absolutely but that isn’t the question I am discussing now is it?
Who is imposing their beliefs on you? Who is persecuting you?
lol.
No one. To have the right to freedom of religion, you also have a right to be free from religion, otherwise your freedom of religion would be negated.
Care to elaborate, or just leave that one open-ended? How would my freedom “from” religion cause me to lose my ability to practice MY religion?
Nothing can stop me from practicing my religion. Nothing can stop me from loving God with all my heart, mind, soul and spirit. No rule or regulation will change my mind. No suicide bomber will shake my faith. No “church scandal” will cause me to turn away, since I know that a corrupt tree brings corrupt fruit, and a good tree brings good fruit. Nothing! The entire world will burn, and I will sit happily confident in knowing that no matter what, God has things under control. I trust that, and nothing will take that away from me.
It’s both freedom of and freedom from. Or it’s just freedom of if you want to argue that having no religious beliefs in a religious belief in itself.
Cool.
Fine, Of course you do… but when the First Amendment speaks of freedom of religion it is speaking of the limits government can place on religion, NOT what you can and can’t do.
As long as they operate within the law, i.e. polygamy, child sexual abuse, etc are not permitted under law.
Right.
The term “freedom of religion” does not appear in the First Amendment.
yep but you brought it up.
More BS from the prepositionally-obsessed.
I’m sorry Mr. Huck but it really was a contraception issue and lets get real with the Bishops risking arrest or imprisonment routine. If the only people that show up to your demonstration are those that don’t use, or never have used contraception it’s going to be a small turnout. The bottom line is that the hierarchy of the different churches can’t get their flock to adhere to their policies so they enlist the help of republican politicians to do it for them by getting them to pass stupid laws. Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs but I don’t want those beliefs running my country.
To David Huck: like many others who insist on the Catholic Church’s need to be free of any government controls, you no doubt simultaneously insist–like your beloved bishops–that gays be denied the right to marry because your religion (but not mine) holds that belief. You are intolerant of those who disagree with you while hypocritically demanding your own freedom of belief. So you want it all your way. Many of us are getting fed up with the Catholic Church’s double standard.
I agree with you and I was raised as a Catholic! I am also getting fed up with the attacks on Obama which are not justified! He is NOT waging a war on religion! But he should be waging a war on the right wing extremists whose views are so blatantly propagated by conservative hypocrites.
Mr. Huck there is no “mandate” in the health care law that “religious?” organizations have to provide contraceptives or abortions.
Ray Bryant
The reality is that Ted believes in everything that the leftists hate, and his in your face support for all the things this country stands for just pi$$e$ them off.
That’s what we like about him!
Right on Ray Bryant, I don’t think I even want to repeat in public what Jesse Jackson said off mike regarding President Obama’s private parts, and Jimmy Hoffa jr.’s urging to his union thugs to “take those sob’s out” was way more over the top than Nugent’s comments. But I bet the Bangor City Council would be falling all over themselves with enthusiasm if Jackson or Hoffa wanted to speak at the waterfront!!!!!
Bangor City Council, can you spell D-I-S-I-N-G-E-N-U-O-U-S??? !!
Alex Gray, if you need anyone to introduce Terrible Ted, I’m available.
David Huck, we can be fairly certain that those ministers in Lexington and Concord you speak of were not Catholic, since Catholics were banned in Massachusetts upon penalty of death, and spoken against well into the late 1700s.
delete
The Catholic church should make the rules for the Catholics. Those who choose to follow Catholocism. They cant just force people who happen to be employed by them to adhere to the churches beliefs. It is against the Constitution. If they want to only employ Catholics than they might have a case. I think the Cathilic church is screaming in agony. It has lost all sense of community. I live in the same town as the Catholic church and I dont see them feeding the hungry or helping the sick. I see them preaching against love and acceptance and in the same way Christ’s teachings. I have mnay family members who are Catholic and I respect their wishes but they are also all for contraception and SSM. Oh, and nobody is going to put the Priests in jail so save the drama for yo mamma please.
Against the Constitution?
Separation of church and state. The church cannot hire people outside their faith and expect them to suffer the rules of their religion. If the person was hired by a satanist and it was a major employer they donot have to perform sacrafiices to keep their job. People should have th option to follow any faith. That is what this country is about. Jobs are hard to come by and people should not have to give up their own religious freedom to have a job that they are qualified for. If they believe in contraception it should be offered to them. If they donot believe then they donot have to accept it but it should be offered to all and that is what the healthcare states…just that it is offered. it doesnt force people to take it.
Excellent comment, Jersey. You’ve said all that needs to be said in a rational world. Unfortunately this issue isn’t about what makes sense. This is about power: an attempt to show Americans that the Church has the power to countermand the legislative, executive and judicial bodies of the United States.
Neither the Vatican nor the American Bishops’ Council gives a rats patooti about contraception. They know most Catholics use contraceptives. This bit of hypocrisy doesn’t bother them. That’s because the issue is not freedom of religion, contraceptives, morality, ethics or dogma. This is about who has power to make laws in the United States; Americans or Rome.
Gosh, That gave me shivers. It sounded exactly like statements made by Republican against Kennedy in the 1960. You surprise me Sally.
“This is about who has power to make laws in the United States; Americans or Rome.”
The same as Jimmy Swagart, Jerry Falwell, etc. who have tried to influence legislation in this country.
Sorry about the shivers Cheese maybe they are justified.
The Church is not concerned about contraceptive use. They allow their parishioners to use it. Paying for contraceptives isn’t the issue. Freedom for Catholics to practice their religion isn’t the issue since the Church would be providing insurance that covers contraception for non-Catholics. Unless they believe they have a right to tell non-Catholics how to manage their reproductive lives the contraception/religious freedom question is entirely out of their circle of responsibility and influence.
What are you left with? Why is the Church pushing so hard on this issue? Why so much money being spent on advertising? Why so many messages from Rome on the subject? Why so much political advice from the pulpit? Money, advertising, leaflets, posters, TV ads campaign style speeches, media involvement. Oh, and don’t forget money, lots of money. Sounds like a political campaign to me. That speaks to power, not worship.
Rome listened when Kennedy spoke. Their ears have been stopped up by too many ultra conservative popes. If the Church wins this one, watch what Rome does and says.
The Church is a great and powerful force in the world for good, for philosophy, for science, for art and music. It’s sad to see them playing power politics over a responsible request and after they ‘ve been given a more than generous solution. They are wasting credibility and respect.
That’s not a rational argument. Even if I were to accept the premise that the separation of church and state is contained within the Constitution (which isn’t the case), the question at hand has nothing to do with the government, only the relationship between the church as an employer and their employees. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about their efforts to act out their faith. If you don’t like the Roman church, then leave them alone and you won’t have to deal with them.
David Huck, Get off your pious high horse! Male dominated organized religion and the male dominated secret service need to accept responsibility for their own actions, including the way they treat women.
%%%%%
Ted Nugent doesn’t need to be lauded if he’s a draft dodger (although I’m old enough to remember when going to Canada was lauded), he gets no celebation from me if he’s not paying support for the fruit of his loins or cavorting with underage girls BUT, that’s not what he’s being attacked for, it’s for expressing the disdain that many of us are feeling, in a manner much more civilized than your “all around heros” like Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Hoffa Jr., and the list goes on.
Right, jump on the hate train.
I hate no man, or woman. I do hate some ideas though and hypocrisy.
He expressed his disdain thru hateful, incendiary speech and you say he speaks for your feelings of disdain. You say he does so in a civil manner. Have you actually heard his rants, or for that matter the Dixie Chicks music ?
*****
He got two student deferments. If that’s what you classify as draft dodging, then President Clinton is also guilty. And so are thousands and thousands more.
What is it with the left that they will forgive their own for anything they do, but when a Conservative stumbles, they are condemned for life?
Oh please. Get off the high horse, you do exactly the same thing in many of your own comments here.
Ah some else has noticed his little hypocrisy. LOL
EJParsons said: “He got two student deferments. If that’s what you classify as draft dodging, then President Clinton is also guilty. And so are thousands and thousands more.”
Here’s a difference between Clinton and Ted Nugent: Clinton didn’t want to go to Vietnam, but he didn’t want anyone else to go, either. He was opposed to the war. Nugent, like Dick Cheney and Mitt Romney, supported the war and criticized the patriotism of those who opposed it. However, they didn’t have the courage to sign up and go fight (unlike, say, John Kerry and Bob Kerrey) in a war they supported. Romney took his deferments and went to France, while others who didn’t grow up with his advantages didn’t have a choice. There is a wall in DC with the names of 58,000 people, many of whom I suspect would rather have been with Romney in France than in Vietnam.
Other than your veiled attempt to slam a couple of Republicans, you proved my point. Thanks.
;;;;;;
He later recanted his story as something that he made up for publicity purposes (a stupid thing to do). The documentation from the induction center classifies him as deferred for education.
*****
So do you believe his first lie or is his recant a lie? Either way, isn’t he a lier? Doesn’t that make anything he says questionable? Don’t believe telling lies is partisan.
Based on your theory no one can be trusted, because everyone has told a lie or two in their lives. And, based on your theory, since we are all liars, no one deserves forgiveness. What a lonely way to live.
I prefer to forgive those that seek forgiveness and look for the good in people. And before the left wingers chime in, Obama has yet to ask for forgiveness for anything he’s done to damage this country. And I’m still looking for something good in his policies.
You are a wonderful man and I just a lowly sinner.
The easy solution to the Catholic Churchs phobia against birth control is to have a national health care system like virtually every other industrialized nation in the world.
Yeah, because government solves ALL our problems. Yup. Government never does anything wrong. Ever.
Question…Why do you support more government control over every aspect of our lives? Because if they can regulate health care, they can dictate your health.
“No longer a part of the Politburo? Yeah, that heart transplant scheduled for next week? Canceled.”
Or maybe…
“Oh, so you’re a Christian? Well, then, your God will save you. Right? You don’t need health care. Bye!”
Maybe far-fetched. Maybe not. We’ll see.
Catholics in France, Italy, Spain, Luxemburg and the other European countries don’t seem to have an issue with government healthcare, including contraception use.
I’m not Catholic, I don’t care.
I wonder if Catholic hopitals have OBGYN’s that have patients in for D&C’s? If they do then I wonder how many of these little operations for female problems solved pregnancies?
If we had national health care the Catholic Church could eliminate health coverage from their benefits packages, as would many employers.
“Oh, so you have a pre-existing condition? Well, you should join a church and pray for good health. Sorry we don’t insure people with pre-existing health conditions. We are a for profit company and people with pre-existing conditions hurt our bottom line. This is after all a capitalist society. Bye!”
In my experience, people are cruel no matter what label you associate them with. Just sayin’, it isn’t going to get any better because government is running it.
Allowingn contraception to be provided under a national healthcare plan does not require you to use contraception but not allowing contraception in a national healthcare plan does dictate your healthcare options.
Ken Huhn, Jim Miller: good letters.
David Huck: hyperbolic defense of a Roman Catholic theocracy. I prefer freedom from your religion.
Ray Bryant:
Ya I know if Nugent were for Obama then there would be no comments from the right. I know how well the right treated the Dixie Chicks after a comment about Bush. Sarcasm intended. You righties seem to forget some of the past.
I don’t like what the Dixie Chicks said. I wouldn’t go see them because of it (even if I liked their music). But I wouldn’t try to prevent other people from seeing them.
I think most thoughtful, intelligent people; Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal , left, right, center are repelled by Mr. Nugent , his crude antics on stage, his sexual innuendos and his foul language. His musical talents are minimal. That he can articulate the extremely violent antagonism of a tiny paranoid group toward the law, the president and the rest of the world seems like a poor reason to pay this man to come to Bangor.
Just a few days ago you admitted you had no idea what his concerts were about. Today you’re an expert. Yesterday you claimed to follow and were very familiar with Colson, yet you misspelled his last name…twice…in the same paragraph which you went back and corrected later.
Was my assessment right yesterday or what lol
Didn’t realize I had such an ardent follower. Sorry about the spelling. Thirty lashes for going back and correcting my spelling. LOL
I’ve done some reading and research about Mr. Nugent and his following and have become quite knowledgable about the subject, his past, his music, his popularity, and his politics. Thirty lashes for you for assuming that peoples minds should stay frozen in time, never learn, never change.
What was your assessment? I didn’t see an assessment only complaints about spelling and expert knowledge.
You saw it, not only did you see it you responded to it. Im guessing I’m not the first one to tell you that.
What???????? I’m not following you. See what??? Respond to what??? Who told me something in addition to you? This sounds very mysterious. You have piqued my interest?
Sort of.
Excuse me, were you talking about the OWS crowd.
Would you say the same about 99% of the rap artists who like to glamourize rape, and cop killing. Don’t forget they are 100% liberal.
I don’t like it. I’m liberal. That’s as much as I can say on the subject. I have not researched it.
I don’t recall a single politician calling for a cancellation of a show. We did what we don’t do nearly enough of, we didn’t go and we put them out of business. You can argue they still exist, but its in a much smaller world.
David Huck,
Your use of religious fervor to incite patriotism, makes me sick.
Jim Miller, you need to do some research about the actual costs of our meat based diet. Now don’t get me wrong I like beef and chicken as mush as the next guy but it is a diet that not sustainable.
To get 1 pound of beef it takes 10 pounds of feed, for 1 pound of pork it takes 5 pounds of feed and for 1 pound of chicken it takes 3 pounds of feed. More ariable land is set aside to grow feed for cows, pigs and chickens then is set aside to provide all of the rest of our food combined. Most of the corn fields you see as you drive around Maine are feed corn for meat production.
Industrial meat farms concentrate the waste in a small area. This concentration of waste is what causes the large amounts of Nitrous Oxide which is not found in wild animal populations because the necessary concentrations are not there. Domestic cows are one of the largest sources of Methane gas because of the diet of corn we feed them. Cows did not evolve to eat corn but instead evolved to eat grasses. It is the digestion of corn, not grass, that results in a large amount of Methane emmisions.
Moving to a more vegetable rich diet and less meat would free up more land for growing food. This increased amounts of vegetable and fruits would more than offset the loss of meat in our deit. Eating less meat and more fruits and vegetables would also increase the health of our country by decreasing the cancers and heart illnesses we now have, saving us many billions in healthcare costs.