Guitarzan (Darrell Lea)


Comment history

Saturday Column: Congressional debates reflect lack of trust in Obama

Who's Bob? Bob's not here, man.

February 14, 2015 at 2:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Saturday Column: Congressional debates reflect lack of trust in Obama

Bob, your spelling is OK, but your sentence structure is lacking. Try using "the" or "a" before the word "tendency" for better results.

February 14, 2015 at 10:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Saturday Column: Congressional debates reflect lack of trust in Obama

What we have reflected in the title and content of this piece is an end result of non-stop propagandizing, fear mongering, and vapid, pretentious hand wringing. A self fulfilling prophecy, if you will.
As usual, one can cut to the chase in the editor's writing by whittling away the superfluous content and focusing on the rhetorical questions. Cue the melodramatic soap opera music...

1) "How would he use his war powers?"
Probably to wage war. He's the President. That's what presidents do when authorized by the War Powers Act.

2) "How can the public or members of Congress have confidence he would use his war powers in the best interest of the nation?"
Gee, whiz, I just don't know! Blind faith in our elected leaders? Avoiding Republican propaganda and puff pieces? There's got to be a way somehow.

3) "Which path would Obama follow?"
Robert Plant said "...there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run, there's still time to change the road you're on...and it makes me wonder."
He's the twice elected lawful leader of the U.S.A.. This is part of the deal, unless ideological purity means more than supporting the Commander-in-chief.

4) "How much are they willing to trust the president to do the right thing?"
Isn't that why we're having a vote on the subject? Let's ask them. Maybe our posturing Congressional representatives can stop talking past the subject and actually go on record and vote...or not. Media appearances and pandering seem to be more important than the actual work of governing to most of these suits.

5) "How many of these illegals might be well-trained individuals who may be directed to carry out terrorist attacks here in the U.S.?"
Oooh...scary brown people everywhere! Hide the children and lock up the women!

6) "If ISIS, al Qaida or other radical Islamic groups truly intend to see their flags flying over buildings in Washington, D.C., how better to get their followers into America than to plant potential terrorists in the steady lines of illegals coming into the U.S.?"
Be afraid. Be very afraid. Anybody ever see "Red Dawn?" It's always something.

7) "If national security is a top priority, why favor a plan that welcomes and encourages the illegals and, once they are here, grant them the rights and freedoms of legal Americans?"
OK. This has gotten old. I'm done here.

February 14, 2015 at 10:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

What chain restaurant would you like to see come to Lawrence?

White Castle and/or Waffle House.

December 23, 2014 at 4:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Saturday Column: Concern about park’s finances continues to simmer

Not a single unanswered rhetorical question in sixteen paragraphs. Not one single scary innuendo directed towards President Obama, Democrats or any of the other demons that sometimes haunt these columns. Someone must really be feeling their Christmas spirit!

December 13, 2014 at 1:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback announces $280 million in allotment cuts to fill budget shortfall

Will the 95.7 million dollar withdrawal from the highway fund have any immediate effect on the construction of the South Lawrence Trafficway?

December 9, 2014 at 7:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Stand confirmed

Read your letters. Disagree with you. Looks to me like you have some sort of persecution complex. Get well soon.

November 30, 2014 at 7:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Saturday Column: Is America changing for the better or the worse?

The writer makes several assertions that are core to the piece, yet fails to provide a single example, anecdote or piece of evidence to support their claims.

"...there were more freedoms in past years before growing government regulations and changes made a significant difference in the lifestyles of most citizens."

"...restrictions and new laws have dampened or severely damaged the traditional free enterprise system that made this country so great."

"...the government has imposed so many rules that limit job opportunities, control what employers can provide in the way of job opportunities and controlled and managed our daily lives."

Is this simply a case of "because I said so?" The piece also asks twelve rhetorical questions, yet neither suggests nor offers solutions to any of them. All in all, this is a very poorly researched and presented piece of party line posturing, and would probably have received a failing grade if presented in any kind of academic environment.

November 29, 2014 at 9:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )