Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

Comment Archives: Stories: News+Opinion: Stegelin's Cartoons: Last 30 Days

Re: “Stegelin: Haley's problem with kids

Yep, GOTP has no care nor clue of what to do with the kids after they leave the womb.

0 of 1 people like this.
Posted by John Clary on July 31, 2014 at 2:53 AM

Re: “Stegelin: No more hoodies

If he was wearing a big Bill Cosby sweater and a Monica Lewinsky beret, and was concealing his illegally carried and stolen firearm with extra ammo in his pockets, he would still have been questioned with the same result. Would that have made everyone feel better? The particular type of clothing is irrelevant, obviously.

1 of 2 people like this.
Posted by Cid95 on July 27, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Re: “Stegelin: No more hoodies

People also wear baseball caps to conceal their identity. People wear big sunglasses to conceal their identity. People wear scarves to conceal their identity. People hide all kinds of stuff in ridiculously over-sized purses. People wear backpacks for no apparent reason. People wear these things in inappropriate weather and lighting all. the. time.

You may be right that the one piece of clothing singled out as suspicious enough to warrant otherwise random stop and frisks by the police is just by coincidence also the only one that is much more likely to be worn by black people, in terms of cultural fashion. It's a shitty coincidence if that's the case, but it's not race baiting to point that out.

4 of 6 people like this.
Posted by HappyPessimist on July 25, 2014 at 1:21 PM

Re: “Stegelin: No more hoodies

The link I posted above was to an image of the unabomber composite drawing from the only witness, who happened to look trough a window at work and saw him at the time he was planting a bomb in the parking lot. The bomb was a small piece of 2x4 with nails sticking up, placed in a parking spot, and when someone picked it up it detonated. And this composite sketch is regarded as the most notorious criminal composites ever, and the reason he was wearing a hoodie was to help conceal his identity. That's why in some situations, such as it being 85 degrees, police can consider it suspicious. The cities' own policy is very specific on this very issue and gives concise regulations on exactly how to approach someone that does not profile them or violate their rights.

Appreciate the conversation but this is getting way too non constructive responding to a bunch of race baiters.

2 of 3 people like this.
Posted by John Cecil on July 25, 2014 at 8:16 AM

Re: “Stegelin: No more hoodies

I think name calling and race baiting would be the tactic of an abusive person.

The only people offended by the SLED investigation were the ones who launched abusive accusations accusing the officer of shooting the teen, before the investigation was even complete. I waited for the investigation to be complete, and simply recognize that the officer in this situation, who was also African American, was at risk, and, did use the proper protocol.

If there was any illegal profiling, abuse, or misconduct there would be a federal investigation.

But that to happen there will need to be more than race baiting journalism and abusive name calling.

3 of 3 people like this.
Posted by John Cecil on July 25, 2014 at 7:51 AM

Re: “Stegelin: No more hoodies

The three R's more suitable for the comments above and for people who are offended by an investigation of a suspicious death would be racist, redneck republicans. I'm wearing a hoodie right now.

6 of 6 people like this.
Posted by Corinne Boyer on July 25, 2014 at 2:00 AM

Re: “Stegelin: No more hoodies

the forgot to draw the stolen revolver he was packin in his hoodie like a thug.

1 of 4 people like this.
Posted by Mikey Mcdoogle on July 24, 2014 at 10:15 PM

Re: “Stegelin: No more hoodies

CCP and the 3 R's. Rabble Rousing Rag..

3 of 8 people like this.
Posted by Streetlaw on July 23, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Re: “Stegelin: No more hoodies

Wonder why this guy was wearing a hoodie?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski…

2 of 5 people like this.
Posted by John Cecil on July 23, 2014 at 3:03 PM

Re: “Stegelin: Hobby Lobby's new contraceptive

Gee, Mat, I would think that you would be all for universal conscription.
After all, how many useless Iraq/Afghanistan wars would there be if the rich people you hate so much thought that their daughters might have to go?

4 of 6 people like this.
Posted by TROLLSLAYER on July 12, 2014 at 10:27 PM

Re: “Stegelin: Hobby Lobby's new contraceptive

That presumes that health care is an earned privilege, not a right.

So, no.

Also, militarism is a plague.

2 of 7 people like this.
Posted by mat catastrophe on July 12, 2014 at 9:00 AM

Re: “Stegelin: Hobby Lobby's new contraceptive

Here's an idea: Universal conscription, after everybody, and I mean everybody, serves their two years they can use the Veteran's health system for life.
Granted that system would have to be greatly expanded and cleaned up a bit.

5 of 6 people like this.
Posted by TROLLSLAYER on July 12, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Re: “Stegelin: Hobby Lobby's new contraceptive

"Why do my taxes have to go to Planned Parenthood to support contraceptives (and abortion), colleges to pay for contraceptives, and ALSO have my employer pay for contraceptives?"

Probably the same reason my taxes go to buy bombs and missiles. We don't get choices in how tax dollars are allocated. Sorry.

"And lets not forget Hobby Lobby didn't stop paying for all contraceptives, just select contraceptives."

And oddly enough, some of the ones they don't want to pay for are also the ones they make money off of through their corporate investments.

"Another point which is more high level, none of this would even be an issue if businesses weren't forced to provide coverage by the government."

You're so very close to the right answer here....

" I love that my employer provides me insurance, but if they did not offer it or offered a coverage I did not like then I would work somewhere else."

And then you drift off base.

"Some of you will say working somewhere else is not an option some people have, but that is their choice."

No, it isn't really a choice people have in a job market with unemployment rates as high as we have. If we had full employment, then your argument might make sense. But we don't have full employment and, more importantly, NO ONE in business or government (despite whatever bullshit they try to sell you at election time), wants us to have full employment in this country. It reduces the power of businesses over their employees because, after all, if you can just walk out one day and go into another job within just a few short days then they have less leverage to beat you over the head with asinine policies.

Which brings us back to the part where you were really, really close to the right answer a minute ago. You're right: government should not require businesses to provide health insurance.

Government should simply insure that all Americans have access to health care, either through government issued insurance (and eliminating ALL private insurance) or (and even better), fully nationalizing all aspects of the health care system into the function of a government agency. That's right, I said it: Doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and the lot should be Federal employees. Period. The for-profit healthcare industry should be abolished.

3 of 6 people like this.
Posted by mat catastrophe on July 11, 2014 at 7:10 PM

Re: “Stegelin: Hobby Lobby's new contraceptive

I am having a hard time understanding the issue here; birth control is incredibly inexpensive if paid for, and free if you go to a tax-backed place like Planned Parenthood or a college medical office. Why do my taxes have to go to Planned Parenthood to support contraceptives (and abortion), colleges to pay for contraceptives, and ALSO have my employer pay for contraceptives?

And lets not forget Hobby Lobby didn't stop paying for all contraceptives, just select contraceptives.

Another point which is more high level, none of this would even be an issue if businesses weren't forced to provide coverage by the government. I love that my employer provides me insurance, but if they did not offer it or offered a coverage I did not like then I would work somewhere else. Some of you will say working somewhere else is not an option some people have, but that is their choice. The great thing about living in America is that those people who don't like their employer health insurance but can't go to another job can live off of unemployment, food stamps, etc.

2 of 3 people like this.
Posted by jch7 on July 11, 2014 at 6:51 PM

Re: “Stegelin: Hobby Lobby's new contraceptive

The ruling itself, or really the "clarification" issued the next day is really an affront to the establishment clause. Even if one likes the outcome for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Products, they expanded the ruling to cover all contraceptives because the Catholic Church says that they're no-nos (I am Catholic, as are four of the five majority-ruling justices on this decision).

But the real kicker is that they also explicitly stated that those are the ONLY coverage exemptions allowed. So if you're a by-the-numbers Catholic, great. If you're a Jehovas Witness (blood transfusions), a Scientologist (psychology/psychiatry), a Christian Scientist (a lot of medical procedures) you're out of luck.

That cannot stand, even though I'd dislike rulings that favored those points of view as well, because it is preferential to one brand of religion.

4 of 7 people like this.
Posted by factoryconnection on July 9, 2014 at 12:14 PM

Re: “Stegelin: Hobby Lobby's new contraceptive

The SCOTUS really screwed this up. They cannot even follow the constitution themselves. The First amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" but that is exactly what this ruling does. So not even the SCOTUS can be trusted to do the right and fair thing. It appears that they now only cater to the repuglican establishment instead of the constitution and citizenry as a whole. Instead of blocking the mandate based on "closely-held religious beliefs", they should have blocked the mandate to ALL businesses to be FAIR to all. This ruling is going to lead to the further erosion of all human's rights and countless and costly lawsuits are sure to follow. Once you grant one religious exemption, the precedent is set for any corporation to discriminate against anyone based on these "beliefs". And many organizations are going to convert to this type of a corporation just so they can "judge" based on the fact they believe they are better than everyone else - including their own employees.

4 of 8 people like this.
Posted by tupper29406 on July 9, 2014 at 9:08 AM

Re: “Stegelin: Hearing crickets on Denzel Curnell

We all have theories or opinions of what truly happened. This is my belief; the Army did not disclose the true reason why they discharged Denzel Curnell. What I am about to say could concern both parties involved in this sad tragedy. Family members think closely of Denzel's past, did he ever receive any traumatic head injuries, did he have problems with learning, fantasying or understanding. I believe SLED should also study the police officer's background to rule out any hidden descriptors. There are millions upon millions walking throughout the world with hidden traumatic brain injuries, the truth, no one notices a brain injury because they become accustomed to a person's actions or do not wish to be involved. Why did Denzel have a gun and why was he wearing a hoodie? I believe his mind lived in a fantasy world; we all fantasize sometime within our life span and some with traumatic brain injuries never reach a period of real reality. Sadly, addictions and brain injuries power everyday fantasies that eventually become a true reality within the believers mind; drugs, prescriptions that are legal or illegal also destroy the human mind. I have faith the TRUTH will prevail in time.

0 of 3 people like this.
Posted by Robert Durland on July 2, 2014 at 7:43 PM
Classified Listings

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2014, Charleston City Paper   RSS