Moderate (George Lippencott)

Follow

Comment history

Letter: Socialistic move?

This is the faith based communities rules. Going to the city to get other peoples money is just what the commandment addresses.

May 24, 2015 at 7:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Socialistic move?

“You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”

May 23, 2015 at 1:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Proud of city

“You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”

May 23, 2015 at 1:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Deregulation

At least commercial loans are not guaranteed by us.

Mr Obama and company have the reins. If there are problems in the College Loan Industry (and there are) they should use their regulatory powers to fix it. Loaning money when the data tells us that many of hose accepting the loans have a snowballs chance of repaying them in a normal lifetime is criminal!

Who with a brain in their head would create housing programs where the taxpayer is on the hook for failure while hucksters can milk the system without penalty. Did this administration not just ease rules to allow loans to 100% of "appraised" value?? Haven't we been down this road before?

May 23, 2015 at 1:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Judging Reid

Wow. The Republicans would not agree to compromise on anything. Really??!! Perhaps you could suggest what some of the compromises offered by the Democrats were that were refused by the Republicans??

April 14, 2015 at 10:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate politics

Thought I commented once on this. I do not understand your comment as addressed to me. I am no fan of the carbon industry. The punishment I refer to is of us the consumers. Taxing them is taxing us! It solves nothing. Worse it punishes disproportionately consumers who rely on carbon heavy generation today. They did nothing wrong and should not be punished. They need to address their resource to correcting the problem not to a tax that does nothing. My approach pays for clean up/replacement directly. Like it or not the industry supplies us energy and right now that is regardless of the energy source.

February 1, 2015 at 4:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate politics

Huh?? Do you understand how the current system works??

January 30, 2015 at 9:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate politics

Chris, How about the KCC?? Government already has a strong hand on what utilities do. My way avoids punishing people for what they did not do. Your way is punitive to those who have done nothing wrong. The Interstate highway system worked. This can work. Of course Government will find it harder to redistribute income as will likely happen with your approach. But we have been around this many times before. By the by who raises the carbon tax - the government!!!

January 30, 2015 at 9:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate politics

Taxing carbon at the source is fine for activities that can be readily changed (light bulbs, etc). .Replacing a coal fired power plant is neither cheap nor something done quickly. Addressing major pollution sources such as power plants should be part of a national program (similar to the interstate program) where we all pay and the money is distributed according to a set priority. No one is at fault for choices made decades ago to use carbon intensive energy solutions. No one should be punished! The proposed carbon tax punishes selectively!

January 28, 2015 at 11:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Explaining white privilege

I do not agree. Revisionist history selectively demeaning a race is racist and yes minorities can be racist.

December 7, 2014 at 6:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous