Sounding off: ‘Dangerous & Crazy’ party could bring all together |
Letters to the Editor

Sounding off: ‘Dangerous & Crazy’ party could bring all together


Let me get this straight. The left thinks President Trump is dangerous and crazy, the right thinks Pelosi and Schumer are dangerous and crazy, both groups think Bernie is dangerous and crazy, and everybody thinks Ocasio-Cortez is dangerous and crazy. Put this all together and it proves that Americans are more united in our thinking than believed. So what do we do with all this newfound like-minded political thought?

Perhaps this might be a good time to propose a new third party. With a few minor tweaks, the Dangerous and Crazy Party (DAC) could achieve great and speedy success. All it would take is for people to realize that no matter whom you vote for, they are (in your fellow Americans’ eyes) “dangerous and crazy.” It’s going to be someone, so why not our guy or gal?

Imagine, the mascot is Daffy Duck, the party logo is a mushroom cloud, the convention could be at Guantanamo Bay, and our “in the pocket” media lapdog could be the Cartoon Network. “WINNING!”

If Teddy Roosevelt could have the Bull Moose Party, Henry Clay the Whigs and Strom Thurmond the Dixiecrats, why not the DAC? Who says we Americans can’t come together politically?

Tim Kaczmarek, Natrona Heights

Take your own bags to store

Thank you for the article highlighting issues, including costs, around single-use plastic bags versus paper bags (“Paper bag sales on the rise as plastic bans go into effect,”).

A win-win solution is to bring your own bags. It is a small step everyone can choose to take to make a difference.

Like many with good intentions, I used to forget to take my bag into the store. The bags sat in the back seat. Now, I leave one reusable bag between the passenger seat of our car and the console so I don’t forget.

Vickie Oles, Ligonier Township

Killers & the unborn

A recent Sunday edition of the Trib had a headline stating, “Push to repeal death penalty emerges in Pa.” For a split second I thought there might be an effort to outlaw abortion and save the unborn children from the death penalty. However, when I returned to reality, I saw the article was talking about sparing the lives of those national treasures, the hundreds of killers on death row.

While the Wolf/Fetterman team is all for killing innocent children in the womb, they are able to find some good in the scum who have killed and maimed hundreds of fellow Pennsylvanians.

How can any sane society allow the Bowers, Poploskis, Baumhammers and other vile killers live and yet snuff out the lives of the unborn?

These human animals cost us millions of tax dollars every year while the thousands of families that have suffered the results of their crimes have no closure and still have to pay for their keep.

Taking the death penalty off the table will only make future killers more vicious, as they have no fear of death. A society that harbors the guilty and kills the innocent is one that is on the brink of extinction.

When talking about abortion, many who are against it will say “except in cases of rape and incest.” My thought is if someone has to die, let it be the rapist or the one who committed the incest and not the innocent child.

Don Thomson, North Huntingdon

Trump should thank Michael Avenatti

In a presidential race that began partially as a publicity stunt, Trump quickly learned that bare-knuckles political hucksterism would work. He understood that the people running much of the national press, and their dimwitted clients, the modern leftist Democratic Party, were more dysfunctional than he could ever be, and would fall for his gambit by trying to match him at his own game.

Knowing the dopes were too emotionally charged to have any chance of winning that game, he could foresee that some way, somehow, they would find a con man to try to take him down. So who did they find? Who else but publicity hound Michael Avenatti.

So these buffoon pundits showered the unvetted porn lawyer with 250 television appearances, MSNBC’s Jon Meacham saying “Avenatti may be the savior of the Republic,” Bill Maher calling him “a folk hero,” CNN’s Brian Stelter describing him as “a Trump-like master of the media, blah, blah, blah, only to have their savior go down in flames after multiple indictments while on his way to jail.

The greatest comedy writers in show biz couldn’t make this stuff up.

Stephen Sokol, Mt. Lebanon

GOP started obstructionism

I would like to enlighten letter-writer Ron Raymond (“Obama vs. Trump”) and refresh his memory. President Obama wasn’t ineffective by choice. He was obstructed from passing laws by Republicans, namely Sens. Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham. They even refused to let Obama follow his presidential duties to nominate a Supreme Court justice. They were the ones who started this obstructionism.

Now for President Trump’s wonderful laws. Yes, he lowered taxes — for the wealthiest 1%, including himself. The tax cut hasn’t helped many others, especially people living paycheck to paycheck. As for the great economy, it didn’t help me to buy a new car or go on a vacation, or even go out to eat once in a while.

Get your head out of Fox News and find out what the real world is going through. Trump paints a rosy picture, but he will be the downfall of this once great nation.

Marlene Butler, Hempfield

The meaning of ‘free’

free adjective 1. not under the control or power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes. 2. not or no longer confined or in prison.

free adverb 1. without cost or payment.

free verb 1. release from captivity, confinement or slavery.

Seventy-five years have passed since D-Day, and how things have changed in America since then. The young men and women involved in World War II and subsequent wars surely had a different meaning for the word “free” than many do today.

On Memorial Day, we celebrated the sacrifices and contributions of all those who served and died for this great nation. It would appear that most of our youth are ignorant of what sacrifices have been made to keep them “free” (adjective and verb).

Americans historically have traveled the globe to make people “free” (verb). We, too, have “free” (adjective) people, guaranteed by almost 2½ centuries of living by the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There are those who wish to change or eliminate such freedoms.

Lastly, there is a new breed of Americans who want “free” (adverb) everything. Democratic socialists who are presidential candidates are promising “free” (adverb) education, housing, wages, health care, child care and other benefits paid for from the redistribution of wealth from working people. When you accept “free” (adverb) things from government, you are certain to lose the “free” that pertains to the verb and adjective.

This is your grammar lesson for the week!

D.R. Lewis, Chicora

Video games & violence

It seems every day somewhere in this country there is some sort of incident in a school, be it a shooting, a threat or a weapon of some sort found on a student. Then we hear from experts and highly educated people that they cannot figure out the why.

My parents, myself and my children watched cartoons like Bugs Bunny on Saturday mornings. Then along came a group of people who said these cartoons were teaching children violence because one character would hit another character over the head with a mallet, causing a large lump to rise on his head. Wow!

Many of today’s parents see no problem allowing their children to use their iPhones, tablets and computers to play violent video “games” in which the winners are awarded points for how many people they can kill. Some of these same games are used by our military for training prior to deployment.

Maybe someone needs to wake up and put a stop to this violent training of our children. It’s possible they are getting ideas from these so-called “games” to go for the real thing.

Robert Ober, Etna

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.