Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
  1. Yes, we need the air traffic locally for both business and consumer reasons.
  2. No, air traffic options locally are not that important to me.
  3. The cost will be worth it if it creates more air travel options to and from the local airport. Right now, the menu is inadequate.
  1. The economy, who is best for the country's economic health.
  2. Foreign policy, this is, after all, the next commander-in-chief.
  3. Personal character, it's important our leader be experienced and respected here and abroad.
  4. I am looking at and comparing the whole of candidates, a combination of abilities that stretch across all the important parts of being president.
  1. Unbalanced, mostly tough and negative on Donald Trump and soft and positive on Hillary Clinton.
  2. Unblanced, mostly tough and negative on Hillary Clinton and soft and positive on Donald Trump.
  3. Just about right - fair.
  4. Irrelevant to me because I no longer trust most of the national media's political coverage since it is not objective, therefore I don't watch it.
  1. Every game I can possibly make.
  2. Some of the games.
  3. The championship game only.
  4. Maybe a couple games and the Grand Slam Parade.
  5. None of it.
  1. It is a much better move than raising sales and income taxes on all Pennsylvanians and it might be motivation to get people to stop smoking.
  2. It is unfair to cigarette smokers. It feels like they are being singled out for the state's budget solution.
  3. It was the correct path to take, but the best long-term path is better control of state government costs so these gadget revenue generators aren't necessary.
  1. Democrat Hillary Clinton.
  2. Republican Donald Trump.
  3. Someone from another party.
  4. I haven't decided yet.
  5. No one. I am not voting. Disgusted with the "rigged" system.
  1. No, this is strictly a choice between Trump and Clinton. Running mates are window dressing.
  2. The choice of Mike Pence, a reasoned conservative, lends valuable balance to Trump and is a good reason to vote for him.
  3. The choice of Tim Kaine, a fairly affable Democrat, adds stability to Clinton is a good reason to vote for her.
  4. Regardless of their impact, they are both important choices. After all, they are the person who would be president if something happens to the elected president.
  1. No, I have faith in the security measures and other precautions taken to make public events safe in our region.
  2. Yes, I no longer feel safe attending events at "soft targets", not because of the people conducting them but because the threat has become too great.
  3. I haven't change any plans yet, but I am starting to consider it when planning public activity attendance.
  1. We need all the help locally we can get regarding the opioid addiction problem. I am normally cynical about government programs that are meant to solve problems but instead result in nothing more than costly staffing, but this is an exception.
  2. The state's only involvement should be monetary support to fund local programs.
  3. Keep the solution exclusively on the local level. State involvement will only result in unfunded mandates later that local governments can't afford.
  1. No. Too much is being read into both actions. I trust the Justice Department to handle the investigation with objectivity and independence.
  2. Yes. But I am not surprised. This is consistent with the arrogant behavior of President Obama and the Clintons.
  3. It does not matter whether it is improper, it gives the appearance of being improper, and that's never good.
  1. Yes, it's a way to bring fresh revenue to the state without raising taxes on revenue.
  2. No, it's a slippery slope to be dependent on gambling revenues and risk the fallout that comes with gambling addiction.
  3. I'm cautiously OK with the move but wish the state's fiscal situation was stable enough that we did not have to rely on gambling gimmicks to balance the budget.
  1. Neither would have stopped this situation or most of the tragic terrorist events happening with increasing frequency.
  2. Stricter gun laws would be helpful.
  3. Given the bulk of circumstances in the tragedies, a temporary ban on Muslims is worth considering until security measures are improved.
  4. The ultimate solution is obliteration of ISIS at its Mideast roots. President Obama's approach to date has been woefully weak.
  1. Only if charges are brought against her; otherwise, it's much ado about nothing.
  2. If the FBI investigators formally cite her for infractions to the Justice Department, that should matter, whether the politically influence Justice Department does anything or not.
  3. Just the fact that she did what already has been pointed out by officials disqualifies her from becoming president of the United States. It shows a lack of judgment and disdain for rules meant to protect this nation's people that make her unsuitable.
  1. No, every new challenge they are faced with is no more than others have faced in generations before.
  2. Yes, it's a much more difficult world, given the lessening of economic opportunity, growing fears about world terrorism and the everyday threats to the American way of life.
  1. That's OK. State police spend a lot of man hours on highway enforcement and safety. Find another way to do the highway projects.
  2. This is the wrong approach. The highways need adequate funding, repairs and improvements and that was the purpose of the state transportation bill two years ago. State police funding should come from other parts of the state budget.
  1. This is great news. Going to Cutters games is a significant part of my summer activities.
  2. I don't go to many games, but I think it's worth keep Bowman Field up to date and having the Cutters as a franchise.
  3. I don't go to any games and think too much money is being spent to keep the Cutters here, even if it comes from accounts other than the General Fund.
  1. The closure was necessary because the city does not have the funds to pay for the necessary modernization.
  2. Given the survey results with expressed favorability for a pool in the park and the support from the Brandon Park Commission, city leaders should have tried to find the money to pay for mordernization.
  3. It was the correct decision, but the Brandon Park Commission should have been consulted much more on the issue.
 
 
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web