Comment history

Opinion: O’Reilly support says much about Fox

I would agree with you in part. Williams is a journalist and O'Reilly is a commentator. I generally do not care for the O'Reilly's show preferring shows like the five where discussion takes place rather than bloviating.

I think there is a little difference in what Williams did versus what O'Reilly did 40 years ago however. I also think both are much ado about nothing. Williams should just apologize and get back on the air. No big deal. I don't watch his show either however, nor would I.

Leonard Pitts is not a journalist and his opinion is his own. I do not hold him to the a journalistic standard any more than I do O'Reilly both are very annoying and both irritate the heck out of me.

March 12, 2015 at 9:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence High boys advance to 6A state semifinals with 64-46 victory

Great day to be a Lion!

March 11, 2015 at 10:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

County plans to pay for renovations to fairgrounds without issuing bonds

I hope they can put a building out there like the size of the horse facility but with a concrete floor. Exhibition Hall....

March 11, 2015 at 10:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Plan to allow Kansas groceries to sell wine, liquor advances

I agree with you that the laws should never have been written the way they were...but the reality is they were written that way, and these neighbors of yours have based their business model on those laws and therefore deserve protection from legislators who think that changing the game after decades of playing, decide to rewrite the rules.

It makes me wonder who has more money to contribute to pet projects or campaigns the guy who has one liquor store or Wal-Mart or Dillons. I can not think of a better case of follow the money....How much money is being poured into the campaign to change a law that does not need changing.

Who benefits? Corporations...yes.

(Keep in mind I have zero problem with corporations that have built their business without interference from the Government) Unlike the Liquor stores who were forced to only have one location.

February 25, 2015 at 1:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Plan to allow Kansas groceries to sell wine, liquor advances

The difference here Fred is that the Kansas Government though tight regulation forced the local liquor stores to remain small and not compete on an equal playing field.

The small business owners play by the rules handed them not being able to expand or sell olives or cups or cigs...They base their investment on a business that is restricted from growth and they are happy to live within the system.

But lo and behold, Kansas wants to add grocers, big box stores, convenience stores that have not had these limitations and allow them to come in and compete against people who have not had the ability by state law to do the same.

That is the same for the Restaurants...they have been in an open market and forced to compete from the beginning. This allowed the small chicken joint to turn into KFC or a couple of college guys in Wichita to open a pizza place and turn it into Pizza Hut. If Pizza Hut had to follow the same laws that Liquor store owners have they would still be a single pizza place on the campus of WSU.

February 25, 2015 at 1:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Plan to allow Kansas groceries to sell wine, liquor advances

I would like to know who voted for this bill to advance so I can actively campaign against those who stand against small business people in Kansas vs. Big Money Corporations....

Sales will not increase, tax revenue will not increase. Your neighbor who owns the local liquor store will not have the buying power of the out of town big stores. Your savings will be pennies.

Then on top of it all they will take their profits right out of the state.

Not right for small business, not right for Kansas!

February 23, 2015 at 5:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sebelius calls Brownback's LGBT reversal 'distressing'

Apparently Governor Brownback.

February 14, 2015 at 5:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sebelius calls Brownback's LGBT reversal 'distressing'

I just read the Kansas Constitution you can find the complete document here...

It appears to me that two things speak to this...

Article One Sec 3. - Executive power of governor. The supreme executive power of this state shall be vested in a governor, who shall be responsible for the enforcement of the laws of this state.

Two it looks like the only kind of executive order that would be legal in the State by the Governor is the ability to reorganize departments that fall under the executive branch. (Could the previous Governor believe that these protections is reorganization? Maybe) So it may rest on what "reorganization" does mention "functions" Could protections be considered a function? I do not really know.

Here is part of the pertinent section.

§ 6: Reorganization of state agencies of executive branch.
(a) For the purpose of transferring, abolishing, consolidating or coordinating the whole or any
part of any state agency, or the functions thereof, within the executive branch of state
government, when the governor considers the same necessary for efficient administration, he may issue one or more executive reorganization orders, each bearing an identifying number,
and transmit the same to the legislature within the first thirty calendar days of any regular

So if he is to enforce the laws of the state and he believes the executive order was not legal then he had no other choice.

Further in the document you can see where the Legislature was responsible for protecting women, which is part of the legislatures duties, so the current Governor may believe this is the way to protect those who need protection through legislative action.

Should LGTB individuals be protected from discrimination? Absolutely, without question. Were those protections enacted in a legal manner according to the State Constitution....maybe, maybe not.

It would be interesting to hear a constitutional attorney talk about this.

February 13, 2015 at 10:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Compton plans to build five-story apartment building at Pachamamas site downtown; grocery project moving along; West Lawrence RadioShack store to close

If you want to save a historic downtown, increasing density (smart growth) adds people who shop and dine in the area. If you want to preserve the downtown area you need MORE people living down there not less.

To get to the kind of density that would save the area, you need to build up.

February 10, 2015 at 5:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )