Chick-fil-A editorial

missed larger point

Regarding the Nov. 27 editorial, "Chick-fil-A and Stockton/A non-issue":

It is The Press that misses the point of the controversy at Richard Stockton College.

Chick-fil-A donates money to groups that oppose same-sex marriage legislation. When it became political, the company opened itself to criticism and boycott by those who disagree with its support of such un-American intolerance.

This has nothing to do with Dan Cathy's personal beliefs, be they founded on his particular religious values or not. It has to do with his company's income and its otherwise goodwill in the community, which it is using to foster discrimination through its charity. This is no less repugnant than, for instance, any company that would use its financial power and public standing to sponsor groups that oppose interracial marriage.

As a consumer, I have chosen not to sustain Chick-fil-A's misguided bigotry. I do not patronize its restaurants. And neither should Stockton students be forced to support them financially through their school's meal plan. Not eating their food, while still subsidizing it, is not the solution.

Let Chick-fil-A set up shop off campus, and then students can make their own choices.

Students have a long history of confronting social injustices and helping to change societal mores, on and off campuses, for the betterment of humanity. That should have been the more inspiring message of the Press editorial.



Revel erred from start

by not copying Borgata

Regarding the Nov. 22 story, "Casino industry profits up 2% aside from Revel/City's newest property saw loss of $37M in 3rd quarter":

The continued optimism of Revel CEO Kevin DeSanctis befits that of the captain of the Titanic on its maiden voyage. His decision to not acknowledge gaming as the engine that drives casinos in Atlantic City was ill-fated from the start.

Unilaterally proclaiming Revel a world-class destination resort unto itself does not make it so. Amazingly, DeSanctis had the advantage of a nine-year blueprint for success - the Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa - staring him in the face. Hopefully, his "revised" vision is not too little, too late.


Atlantic City

Obama re-election

amounts to landslide

Many people are saying President Barack Obama was re-elected by a "mere 2.8 percent."

Check the election results for Nixon-Kennedy, Nixon-Humphrey, Ford-Carter and, of course, both of George W. Bush's victories, one in which he did not even win the popular vote. Talk about close.

Usually, if a president goes into an election with high unemployment, high debt and an ongoing war, one would think the challenger would win in a cakewalk. This makes the fact that Obama won by 2.8 percent a landslide in modern terms, even more impressive with the large differential in electoral votes.

This happened because an overwhelming number of voters still believe that the previous administration was responsible for our current economic chaos, that the extra debt incurred with the stimulus helped us avoid a depression and that we have a game plan to end the war in Afghanistan.

More important, voters felt the president cared about their needs, not trickle-down policies that have failed. Not only was this a landslide in which the election was over by 11:20 p.m., it was a mandate, because the Republicans, given their beliefs and attitudes, have nowhere to look for additional votes.



Why do we accept

public figures who lie?

In regard to the deaths at our consulate in Benghazi and the subsequent controversy about Susan Rice's repeated attempts to pin them on reaction to a so-called anti-Muslim video:

Is there anyone else out there who is tired of the ongoing movement in our society to excuse lying?

Rice may have been sent out with talking points that she followed, but it seems ever more accepted and dismissed when someone in public life looks people in the eye and lies.

I am not a right-wing ideologue. I am just tired of the likes of Barry Bonds, O.J. Simpson, Bill Clinton and Lance Armstrong - among many others - who tell us lies and then have their supporters say, "Well, it depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

I think that Rice has lost significant credibility by not saying, "No, I will not go out there and tell the American people something that is substantially false just to maintain an appearance for this administration."

A lot of the talking heads are calling it politics. Plain and simple, it was lying.




Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.