Hawley votes against 'anti-Second Amendment' bill

While I'm glad Hawley voted against this bill, I don't want to have any further assaults on the 2nd amendment (or any other constitutional rights). Why are they not concerning themselves with the state budget, only the state budget and nothing else? Please everyone, remeber this crap come election day.

You've got that right John. This is the 3rd or 4th year in a row that they've tried to make pistol permits renewable. Each time it was about raising revenue. I guess this time they figured they'd get less flack if they called it a public safety bill. And microstamping ammo is a joke too. When a bullet impacts something it deforms. Alot. A stamp would be illegible after impact. Traceabiliity after a bullet is used is a pipe dream.

John is absolutely right. The micro stamping is useless. This is simply a way to make it look like the politicians are doing something about gun violence with out actually doing anything to address the problem.

John, C.M. is out of town this weekend so he's probably not going to see this thread. I had a pretty detailed conversation with him about firearm issues and what he told me was that he doesn't believe in fees and 'punitive taxation' as a solution to New York's Budget woes. We all know that that is pretty much what this bill amounts to. Chris Barons has a deep respect for our hunting and shooting traditions and, if in Albany, would be working hard to get guns out of the hands of criminals without affecting our hunters and sportsmen. The other side, of course, is that while Hawley seems to understand where the real gun problem lies, he doesn't seem to be very busy doing anything about it. Hawley said: "The Majority should be working on legislation that will help pursue the criminals who obtain their firearms illegally.” OK Steve, I'll bite, why aren't YOU working on it. You seem to have an understanding of the needs and rights of law-abiding gun owners. You should be just the right guy to help hammer out some meaningful legislation, but instead, every year you just wait for 'The Majority' to get it wrong so you can vote 'no' and tell us what a great job you're doing.

He won't.

It's accurate to say he's doing nothing about criminals with illegal weapons and that's what this conversation is about. None of those bills have anything to do with the issue we're discussing. If you want to argue with me, don't use unrelated material to do it. I find that practice completely disingenuous. Defend Hawley, but tell the truth about facts related to the matter at hand.

The "Hawley's doing nothing" meme reminds me of "truthiness

It's not a 'meme' either; rickrolled is a meme. This is just an occurrence of more than a few people noticing a trend.

What are the chances that Howard and John are going to talk about the original subject of the thread: Slim to none I'd say. Downstate Democrats obviously have some interest in getting illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. Steve Hawley obviously has an interest in ensuring that that sort of legislation doesn't adversely affect upstate sportsmen. This is a perfect opportunity for the two interests to work together and get something meaningful written and passed. I'm saying that Hawley has no interest in actually working on this because it's easier for him to let the Downstate Dems run rampant on hunter's Second Amendment rights and then blame all Democrats for it. This isn't that difficult to understand. Three men in a room aren't writing gun legislation.

Chris, Reread what I said at first. I stated this is nothing but a money grab and the idea of marking ammunition is stupid, costly and will do nothing. The bill also will do absolutely nothing to stop illegal guns (Chris, bad guys don't license illegal guns). There is no working with Democrats on this issue. It has come up before, been defeated, and they keep bring it back up. It's about taking more of our money. There is no need for this bill at all, none. Hawley did what he should have done, voted no. No need to reword or rework it, just don't pass it. But I would ask you again, when will you Democrats give us a balanced budget?

I read what you wrote John and I agree with most of it. Now go re-read what I wrote. I said that Hawley is in a good position to assist in writing useful gun legislation that will not affect our hunters and sportsmen. He's just not bothering to try. The budget is a fiasco, but a fiasco unrelated to the subject at hand. What the hell though, I'll play your game. You're saying that Hawley can't do anything about the budget, he can't do anything about protecting our hunters and sportsmen from punitive fees and ridiculous laws and he can't protect his district from unfunded mandates. So why should we send him back to Albany? $70,000/ year is a lot to pay a guy who is seemingly unable to do his job.

Oh, I get your logic now. Hawley is completely ineffective, but we should assume that anyone else is going to be as well. That is the most patently ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Howard, Hawley is doing nothing and we've cited examples. As a matter of fact, we've been citing them since well before there was going to be a contested race. This isn't new and it's not going to go away just because you don't like it. We tell you the reasons we think Hawley should no longer hold office and you tell us that they're 'hogwash.' Then you say that you're not defending Hawley. That's as much as I would expect from a person who believes there's 'no such thing as objective fact.'

From what I can see, C.M isn't even running yet, but you have already started using the negative buzz words like, disingenuous, campaign of ad hominem attacks, avoid talking about the real problem in New York,sham campaign and counter-productive. Who exactly are you directing the buzz words, C.M or Chris? I was at the meeting and listened to C.M. speak. You are right about one thing, you wrote, "I think Chris can effectively engage Steve in a productive and beneficial debate on real issues.". It is too bad you weren't there to hear him speak. It was a breath of fresh air.

Chris, you left out this portion: "The term Internet meme (pronounced /ˈmiːm/, rhyming with "cream"[1]) is used to describe a concept that spreads quickly via the Internet.[2] The term is a reference to the concept of memes, although this concept refers to a much broader category of cultural information." And Chris, below is the very definition of "disingenuous" "Howard, Hawley is doing nothing and we've cited examples." What you continue to ignore is that even God Himself couldn't do anything if He was a Republican in the Assembly. Your examples are meaningless, because even when you personally ran and were elected as a Republican, you couldn't do any better. You're demanding of Steve that he be something that nobody could be. You're welcome to keep bashing away at the same hollow claims, but you do yourself, your party and Genesee County a disservice with this smoke-and-mirrors act. How about sticking to issues instead of ad hominem attacks? Though C.M. has left comments attacking Hawley along the same lines, I'm hopeful, given his intelligence and breadth of knowledge, he can and will run an issue-oriented campaign and stay away from the mudslinging. But given your position in the party and your unwillingness to recognize that your attacks are without substance and just, in fact, mudslinging, I'm not feeling too hopeful about that at the moment. And Bea, stop twisting what I say. It gets really old. I'm not debating Barons here. I'm not even taking a position against C.M. And it's a shame the only way to discuss this issue is by including the names of Hawley and C.M. Barons, or Republicans and Democrats, because my issue has NOTHING to do with any of those proper nouns. It's about lobbying for an honest, issue-oriented campaign that deals with reality, not fantasy about what whomever is elected is able to effectively do.

Here's another definition for you, Chris, with some irony: An idea that self-reproduces like a virus; a catchphrase or concept, or other unit of social currency. Example: "Where's the beef?" Source: http://www.oskoui-oskoui.com/glossary/M

and nothing here is spreading 'quickly via the internet' Howard. It's just you and me trying really hard to remain polite while a few innocent bystanders wonder why the hell the tone this morning is so acerbic.

Chris, when you wrote, "but instead, every year you just wait for 'The Majority' to get it wrong so you can vote 'no' and tell us what a great job you're doing. " You opened the door to topics other than gun control because you're hitting on a theme that has been common for several months now: Hawley does nothing. To try to particularize that concept as to applying only to this thread is to ignore the larger issues at play. I've not sensed anything acerbic in the tone. We've just been debating. What I'm waiting to hear is what you would do in his place ... pretend you're a member of the Rose Party and the Tulip Party controls the Assembly -- what do you do to get any major piece of legislation passed that the Tulip Party has always said they oppose?

Perhaps the Republicans should instead nominate Don Quixote to run in Hawley's place.

Posted by Howard Owens on May 15, 2010 - 1:45pm What I'm waiting to hear is what you would do in his place ... pretend you're a member of the Rose Party and the Tulip Party controls the Assembly -- what do you do to get any major piece of legislation passed that the Tulip Party has always said they oppose? Sorry, I can't resist. If I were the Rose Party (your favorite flower, by the way, not surprised you chose it to be "Hawley"), and the Tulip party controls the Assembly, what do you do? Just exactly what is being done. Throw as much manure (ie: press releases) against the wall and hope some of it sticks.

Chris, prove I'm wrong. What example can you cite of the majority party compromising with the minority party to pass a piece of legislation where they start with significant differences? I cited an example of a case where downstate interests have adamantly refused to sit down and reach a compromise position with upstate interests. What counter example can you cite?

Sure Howard, but Chris Charvella isn't running for anything is he? Hawley can defend himself, let him. You engaged in this discussion because you didn't like what I said, or the way I said it. Tough cookies, I stand by it all and I backed it up to boot. Taking issue with my approach is, in itself, a defense of the other side. If it wasn't then you would be taking Hawley to task for simply complaining about 'The Assembly Majority.' It's the same sort of argument, but you didn't seem to have a problem with it before.

Chris, where have you backed it up? I just don't see that. You've made lots of assertions, but offered no proof. "Taking issue with my approach is, in itself, a defense of the other side." Bunk. It's taking issue with a form of argumentation that lacks substance or any qualification of being backed up by valid data. You're welcome to stand by it, but as an disinterested observer, I'll stand my observations. You're welcome to attack me as being somehow "taking Hawley's side," but that doesn't invalidate what I know to be true -- which isn't not about Hawley, it's about dealing with reality. "If it wasn't then you would be taking Hawley to task for simply complaining about 'The Assembly Majority.' It's the same sort of argument, but you didn't seem to have a problem with it before." That is a circular argument.

Howard, Hawley has not written any gun control legislation that targets criminals and keeps the state's hands off of hunters and sportsmen. He says that's what 'the Majority should be working on' inferring that he has no responsibility to participate. That's what this is about, that's where this started. It doesn't get more black and white. and no, Howard, it's not a circular argument; if you claim to stand on principle then you should do so both when it hurts your cause and when it benefits you.

Chris, I thought you would know by now, even if your on the right committee, the minority is ignored. And if you're not on the right committee, don't bother writing anything because it will not be accepted. That's just the way they run things And there are more than enough gun laws now on the books. I don't want the majority writing any more. What they should do is up the penalties for gun use in a crime, but Mr. Silver does not support that. And again, if he does not support it, it is dead.

Chris wrote, "Howard, Hawley has not written any gun control legislation that targets criminals and keeps the state's hands off of hunters and sportsmen. He says that's what 'the Majority should be working on' inferring that he has no responsibility to participate. That's what this is about, that's where this started. It doesn't get more black and white. " But that's the heart of the problem, Chris, and a point I've made that you've not directly answered. Like I said before, what you're asking Hawley to do: "It's like blaming the doctor for his failure to revive a corpse that's been in the grave for 100 years. Or for blaming the astronaut for not bringing the entire Moon back in his lunar lander. Or blaming the 12-year-old for not pitching the perfect game in the MLB World Series." I don't know what the cost to introduce legislation in New York is, but in California, in the 1990s, it cost taxpayers $25,000 for each piece of legislation introduced. There is a cost associated with introducing legislation. So are you suggesting that Hawley waste taxpayer money by introducing a bill that both you and I know will die in committee? Again, this isn't about Hawley. It's not defending Hawley. It's arguing against a line of thinking that in my perception is not wedded to reality.

What haven't I directly answered Howard. I explained what I think he should be doing and why he should be doing it. I just don't think you get it. Hawley tells us what the other guys should be doing instead of taking ownership of his opinion and attempting to participate in the process. It is about Hawley and no matter how many times you try to take the heat off of him, the reality is the same. Is he able to legislate or not? If not, let's replace him with someone who can.

Chris, Do you really think sending CM, or a Democrat, will change how Mr. Silver is running the Assembly. No, he won't. And we would lose the dissent vote and voice. On top of that, CM is not a real Democrat, he's a Green. He'll have to play extra nice with Mr. Silver to even get on a committee. The rules in Albany are no different than what you ran against at the County level-same thing. You would have had no real input or say on anything. But you would be able to voice your dissent.

Howard, if I say the sky is blue and you refuse to accept it as fact then we're done here. Nothing is stopping Hawley from attempting to write the kind of legislation we're talking about. He says it's the Majority's responsibility and that's incorrect.

FWIW: I can argue all day when I have the time. The intellectual game of it is quite fun. I always regret that I wasn't on the debate team in school. Once I got to dabble in the constructs of argumentation, I found I quite enjoyed it (whether I'm disciplined enough at it to be any good is, um, debatable, but I do enjoy it). The topic is secondary.

It's not a game Howard, we're not dealing in abstracts here; Albany is a very real place. What the pro-Hawley contingent is saying here confuses me. We all realize that certain things need to be achieved in Albany We want those things to be achieved. We recognize that our current representative cannot help us achieve them. We send him back to Albany anyway. sigh...

Ok, Howard, Chris & John; I read through all 62 comments and only fell asleep once. The final comment was worth it: "As I've said many, many times: I see no value, if you believe in and want change, for voting for either a Republican or a Democrat. That will never achieve change. If you want change, don't line up behind a Republican or a Democrat. Line up behind a third-party candidate. The revolution won't begin in either major party." The state is going broke, parks are going to be closed, the idiot Governor almost set us up to be burdened with expensive lawsuits relating to a punitive furlough program for "some" state employees, the LT Gov who was brought in just for his expertise in negotiating fails totally; and all the 2 houses of legislature want to do is bat the ball back and forth. The majority party spits out inane bills like seahorse protections, "money grab" pistol re-licensing and an already defeated farm worker bill to make certain politicians look good for their particular constituencies. The minority then speaks out against them so they can say "I'm doing something, I'm saving NY money" All the while staying in session 3 days a week, collecting their salaries, paying their staff and running up per diem charges. Chris called them "Glad handing nincompoops", perfect phrase (hope I can use that). I believe a lot of people have had enough of this B.S., unfortunately most of them don't vote. Look at the Tea Party movement, it was getting a lot of participation, until Republicans have started hi-jacking it which will turn off the people it originally tried to attract. I hope C M Barons does run, I hope it is as a Green or party other than D or R. I don't think he's right saying that he needs to be aligned with one of them. It's going to take everyday people talking him up, home made signs (al a Ron Paul) and distance from the apparatus that has run this state and country down to where we are. Sorry, Chris Charvella, you are a bright guy and we agree on a lot of things, but you are going to have a tough time getting people who don't usually vote to get excited about a candidate who is going to be part of a broken system. To go back to an earlier question, if I may: What would I have Steve Hawley do? Stand up Every day in the Assembly and demand all business be set aside until a budget agreement is reached. May be futile and frustrating, but I'd respect that.

Dave, I'm sure C.M hopes he can count on your support no matter what lines he runs on. :) Howard's speculation about party switching is a fabricated controversy, not based on any actual event. The concept hasn't even been discussed with the potential candidate. One does not have to be a Democrat to run on the Democratic line or to be endorsed by our party. I'm only addressing it here because it's the sort of nonsensical rumor that can get out of control before breakfast. I think it was Mark Twain that said: "A lie can make it half way round the world before the truth has time to put on its shoes." As far as us (meaning the posters here) deciding exactly what Barons' relationship with Sheldon Silver is going to be 6-months before election day and 8-months before the next assembly is sworn in well...it's premature to say the least. I know of one Democratic Assemblyman (Mark Schroeder) from South Buffalo who insisted last time around that if a balanced budget weren't delivered on time he wouldn't vote for Silver's re-election as Speaker. Schroeder kept his promise and Silver retaliated by cutting Schroeder's office budget. As I understand it, Schroeder has to pay for his own phones in Albany. Schroeder still bucks the Speaker when his principles say he should and it doesn't look like he has any intention of doing anything different. I told that story as an example. There are good, tough, ethical Democrats in Albany and maybe, just maybe, if we start giving them some company we can begin to change the tone up there. Of course our other option is to do the same old song and dance and send Hawley back. Then we can spend the next two years complaining about how screwed up Albany is and how we're just too insignificant to get it fixed. Sources on Schroeder: http://www.observer.com/5203/rage-mark-schroeder\ http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/04/29/1034432/schroeder-calls-silver-obs...

The negative just keep coming. Posted by Howard Owens on May 15, 2010 - 5:03pm If Chris Barons were to win, in the "introduce and pass legislation" sense, he wouldn't be able to do much. Surely, you must recognize that's true. So why bother running? Just send the same old back again and again. No reason to change horses in midstream. So far Howard gives the impressiion that Chris Charvella and, in some cased C.M. are not wedded to reality; untruthful; not capable of running a campaign; unrealistic; ineffective, and described Chris' opinions as 'hogwash'. While that may be a the ideal way to spend a dreary day with nothing else to do, it puts this entire discussion on the same level as a game show. Running for NYS Assembly for the 139th isn't a game and the discussion isn't meant to be a fun exercise.

Let me adjust my comments. If a candidate runs on the Democratic Party line, the perception will be that he is a Democrat. My point is that voter turn-out is not very good at any time, worse during a mid-term such as 2010. I believe it's been about 35% over the last 20 years. If anyone is going to defeat Hawley, they will need new voters or at least people who don't usually vote in midterm years. The perception in this district is Democrats are not good for WNY'ers. I'm not agreeing with that, just saying. My humble opinion is that a true outsider is what's going to get those people excited.

Howard, your 'question' (stated more than once in the last few days) is about a non-issue that hasn't even been discussed. You're fabricating news where there is none.

I'm not sure whether being on the Dem line will help or hurt. First, I'm not convinced that basing your entire campaign on anti-incumbent fever is a sound strategy. History shows that anti-incumbency abates as voters enter the booth. Anti-incumbency can start a campaign; I'm not sure it can finish it. Being on the Dem line will guarantee a base of votes. Some people vote straight party line. Obviously, in this district, that's not enough to win, but it's a start. The question is, does it give more votes than it takes away? If a third-party candidate could position himself as a truly independent, but still be on a major party line, that might be the best of both worlds. Tricky waters to navigate, but might the best hope for unseating an entrenched incumbent. Or to put it another way, if the County Democrats want to make a serious run at unseating Hawley, they're going to have to find a non-Democrat who can align with independent voters and create a coalition strong enough to counter balance the auto-GOP vote. To get somebody like Barons elected, it's going to take a strong anti-Albany coalition that cuts across some ideological boundaries, which means support from the Democrats. It sounds like there are a lot of right-leaning voters on this site ready to at least consider backing Barons. Those type of voters will need to be part of such a coalition. One aspect of that is not only the Democratic name, but the Democratic organization. Genesee County Democrats may not be the largest organization, but it's a very active and passionate organization. I don't think a challenger could win without that support, no matter how strong the anti-incumbency mood.

This discussion gets me thinking about Nebraska and their non-partisan, unicameral State Senate. We really can't afford 150 Assemblymen and 62 Senators and their respective support staff. In this day and age of instant communication and ease of travel, why do we need so many representatives? The non-partisan aspect takes away the power a Sheldon Silver wields. I know we have a lot more people and issues than Nebraska, but it's a direction to head toward.

I believe we have 62 counties in NY

Posted by John Roach on May 15, 2010 - 7:47pm Chris, I looked up Assemblyman Schroeder. He has sponsored lots of legislation, and almost none has been voted on this year. It all dies in committee. That's what happens to Dems. who buck Sheldon Silver. If CM didn't switch parties and bucked Silver, how do you think he'll get treated? Assemblyman Schroeder has been there for five years. It is uncommon for someone with that low seniority in the Assembly to get through many bills anyway. He has, however, passed several important pieces of legislation. If C.M. goes to Albany as a Green/Democrat then most likely he would have the same record as Schroeder even though he has not aligned himself with Silver. So, a junior Assemblyperson will not get a lot through regardless of party affiliation. Hawley does not have a better record than Schroeder and he doesn't have Silver on his back. C.M, on the other hand, would not be beholden to Silver or the Assembly leadership.

I'm not the only one talking about it, Chris. Just the only one in this thread. That's all I can say.

Running a partisan, anti-Hawley campaign is a sure way to get embarrassed. If that is the strategy, my advice would be to spend the campaign budget on some wings and beer. Life is too short to waste time and effort with a bad plan that is doomed from the beginning.

The bi-cameral idea isn't bad Howard. Especially if you reduce the Assembly to 50 or so members. That reduces the total legislation to 112, almost half what we now have. I like the one county, one dog one bone idea too. Cap their salaries at 100 grand, cap their staff numbers, one office in the district and one in Albany. Go to a non-partisan election system, no majority or minority parties, term limits and a district map that makes common sense and you're all set. I agree Charlie, campaign for your guy and his positions, not against anyone or anything.

I believe, I'm not sure though in Nebraska they have an open primary in each district and the top 2 vote getters, then run against each other, regardless of party affiliation. Their senate then elects their leaders on the first day of session, again regardless of party. I suppose members of a particular party could band together and vote a bill in, but it takes out the power to control the bills that get to the floor. It's got to be better than the dysfunctional mess we have in Albany now.

Dave, that sounds like an acceptable system, but one of my beliefs is that political parties should be responsible for putting their own candidates in the general election at their own expense. In other words, primary elections should not be funded by taxpayers. Each party uses its own expense and method to select its general election candidate and then we vote.

I see what you are saying Howard, but this gives independents a better chance when they aren't running against party money. Interestingly, Nebraska went to this in the 1930's after first voting out a lot of incumbents over dissatisfaction about partisanship and no cooperation between the 2 houses during the depression and the new guys couldn't get a budget passed. The subject had been raised about 20 years earlier, but it took the effort of one of their US Senators. They had to have a constitutional convention. Nebraska has had this ever since 1935. The Senators are also part-time, get paid 12,000 a year are term limited and are in session 90 days per year. Noone does it for the money. Like I said above, Nebraska is a lot less populous than NY, so it would surely need to be modified, but in my opinion is a good direction.

Lorie, are you saying that you believe what I said came from a Republican talking points paper? You can't be serious... As for competition and choice. You are not giving anyone a choice if you select a far left candidate to run against Hawley. That is not a choice that a vast majority of the assembly district would ever make.

Posted by David Meyer on May 16, 2010 - 8:35am I'm a little late to this party, but I've read all 90 (or so) posts and there's a lot of wind there. I might as well add some. I've already taken the position that I will be voting against ANY incumbent for state office in the upcoming election because of the charade that is currently called government in New York. I know that's a stupid position, but it's my stupid position. Therefore, if C.M. Barons does run...he gets my vote. If he runs, would you put a sign on your lawn? Think of the possibilities if *everyone* in the state did this in every district. Sheldon Silver would be gone! This isn't so much about Democrats or Republicans...it's about responsibility. Exactly. I'm not so much against Steve Hawley as I am against our tax money being wasted on as colossal a scale as is currently taking place. There has been a great deal of speculation, on this site, about the platform someone should have if they run against Hawley. There has also been a great deal of ridicule against the thought that anyone would have the nerve to challenge the annointed one. He has staunch supporters, on this site, who want nothing more than to send him back to Albany. There are plenty of examples of Democrats in the legislature including the aforementioned Shelly who need to go. Senators Bill Stachowski and Antoine Thompson from Erie county (the latter being particularly greasy) are local examples of all that is wrong with the current system. Both parties are currently part of the problem and completely new blood is needed. The idea Mr. Olsen described in previous posts is intriguing and would certainly be a step in the right direction. One county one senator sounds like a good idea and we certainly don't need 150 assemblymen making $80K + per year to get what we're getting now. As a side note, I went to www.seethroughny.net and downloaded the spreadsheet of legislature salaries for 2009. There are 4807 rows in that spreadsheet. Some lines are duplicates, for example Steve Hawley's base salary is $79,500 and then he gets another $9109.59 for being the "Chr Min Program Comm" (whatever that means). So for $89000 we get what we're getting. The total for all salaries for 2009 was $170,658,394.40 How many out there think we're getting our money's worth? See above. People like Charlie and his ilk will work hard to see that Hawley is reelected. You will read outright lies about what is happening with a candidate that isn't even endorsed and isn't available this weekend to discuss his ideas or opinions. So, they have had a ball making things up out of whole cloth. You are right about one thing. Is Steve earning that $89,000? Apparently the fiscal conservatives, on this board, feel it is money well spent. Do you?

David; No such thing as late to this site, in my opinion anyway. Thanks for the seethroughny info. In answer to your question, No I don't think we are getting our money's worth.

Dave The idea of non partisan elections is how our School Board elections are run now.

Bea, Nobody said he would absolutely switch. They were speculating. You know full well some in you party felt burned by some local candidates that ran on your line, but were not Democrats. Some said they would not endorse anyone again that was not an enrolled member. Since CM is a Green, the speculation is fair, but not a lie. It was more along the line of you trying to make us think you had a Democrat to run, a topic for discussion. His platform will be fun since he has posted his opinions here for a long time.

Bea, No more knowledge than you. The discontent was from last the last two years.

Charlie, Do you believe that he actually earns the $89,000 that we pay him?

The idea of voting anti-incumbent, regardless of party, is as close to revolution as our fat lazy society could muster at this point. While I have no real qualms with the job done by Steve Hawley, I fully support this novel approach to the next election. I am making it my mission in the next several months to promote awareness to this idea. It also astounds me that Nebraska and New York could be so different in their approach to government. It sounds like Nebraska has it right...the office holders are not career politicians, rather citizens doing their patriotic duty. As far as Hawley earning his pay, I doubt ANYONE in the legislature "earns" his or her pay. Let's revolt

Oh John, of course Mr Silver earns his pay. Remember he and two other corrupt guys do run the state from a back room.

Whatever, John. Just keep putting words up that I haven't said. Have a grand Sunday, I have things to do today.

Bea, Have a good day, its great outside. I recommend the County Park. But, since you asked if we thought Hawley has earned his $89,000, it was more than fair to ask you, if you, thought Silver has earned his pay ($121,500). Your failure to answer yes or no tells me your question was pure partisan. But we can wait till Monday for you to answer.

Its too bad all this debate will change nothing !

Great video Gabor.

Two good videos, Gabor.

John, I am in no position to either agree or disagree with you because I don't follow gun control or crime prevention legislation. That is why I had decided not to comment on that topic. But I think that your comment speaks volumes to the overriding theme of "people are angry over politics as usual".

howard seems to have become the "apologist" for hawley in virtually any & all circumstances ad nauseum. talk about "special interest" influence on politics, hawley can always be counted on to do whatever the fanatical LEADERSHIP of the NRA demands of him. how much do they contribute to his campaigns i wonder? it appears he marches in lock step to whatever his party's leadership in albany dictates, a rubber stamp seemingly incapable of of formulating his own independent viewpoint. can anyone on this site point out an occasion when his stand on any issue differed from that of his leadership?

David- Why don't you focus your political attention to the corrupt democrat downstaters that are less than desirable in their actions, like Charlie Rangel and Pedro Espada. And keep your ears and eyes open for the revolution. No incumbent is safe this November, including Mr. Hawley.

David, Without bringing either candidate into this question, do you: 1) Think this is good law? 2) Prevents crime? 3) Is another fee, punitive tax or money grab?

I enjoyed that Dave, Thank You.

today Rand Paul, US senate candidate in the republican primary in kentucky was quoted thus in the media: "the day of reckoning is coming. we cannot elect the same old politicians without getting the same old mess." genesee county voters may want to keep that in mind regarding assemblyman steve hawley's re-election campaign.

ok bud. so you must feel then that upstate republican & former senate majority leader joe bruno, recently convicted & sentenced for corruption, could not poosibly have been corrupt because he was from upstate & is a republican? i agree that pedro espada is corrupt & i suspect he'll be defeated but the article i was commenting on was about steve hawley & not pedro espada.

Bud says A revolution's coming. Man, I hope so and not a moment too soon. Arlen Spector is 80 years old for heaven's sake; let go, Arlen.

Mr. Lazik has a record as a NYC hack. Today he proved it again.

i will not dignify john roach's personal attacks & insults with a response.