ShareThis Page

Let's 'launch' some new careers

| Saturday, March 16, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Recently, Attorney General Eric Holder, when asked about drone strikes on American citizens on American soil, finally said that yes, such strikes would indeed be unconstitutional and that he could not envision a scenario where they could be justified.

Or how about New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's attempt to ban sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces, which a judge recently stated is unconstitutional?

Personally, I do not agree with anything that nanny Mayor Bloomberg puts forth.

Bloomberg, not Dennis Rodman, should be playing basketball with the North Koreans since Bloomberg is more in line with the size of North Koreans. I believe the politically correct terminology is “vertically challenged.”

Or how about Nancy Pelosi, in a recent interview with newsman Chris Wallace? When Wallace asked her about government's runaway excessive spending, Nancy's inane reply was, “We don't have a spending problem, we have a paying-for-it problem.”

As Rush Limbaugh said, “Anyone with an I.Q. above that of a pencil eraser would understand how stupid Nancy's comment was.”

Lately, the North Koreans under their new leader have had a propensity to launch rockets.

Perhaps our unofficial ambassador to North Korea, Mr. Rodman, could persuade the North Koreans to give both Michael and Nancy a free rocket ride into outer space. Dennis could tag along.

Because outer space is where these people belong.

George Wesolosky


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.