Advertisement

Richard07

Follow

Comment history

Drug-related home invasions on the rise in Lawrence

If you are suggesting we allow the likes of the above mentioned perps to have their way with the "Rolands" of the world because defending your home and property might get you killed...well, you lost me. Yes, even if the "Roland" might be a dealer. Jack22 is correct. You are preyed upon because the perp thinks you are an easy target. If the perp thinks there is a 50/50 chance (or worse) he will die in any encounter my guess is these incidences will diminish. Too bad the dead perp in this case can't verify that.

September 8, 2013 at 9:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Baseball cheats

I like ex-MLB Comish Fay Vincent's WSJ editorial suggestion: Institute the "One Strike You're Out" Rule.

August 7, 2013 at 12:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Detroit faces rendezvous with reality

"The problem was not with the unions or with the manufacturers so much as with the mindset:" What bigger mindset is there than of a union? Detroit has been a den of corruption and fiscal malfeasance since the 1970. The bullet that killed Detroit was shot 60 years ago.

August 5, 2013 at 12:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: McBudget is insult to working poor

I agree. I have been a worker, supervisor, manager , GM and corporate VP in my 40 plus years of working and no manager worth his weight in salt hires someone who has reached his/her highest level of competency upon being hired. The bigger question is "Why was this person hired in the first place?"

July 29, 2013 at 8:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence man, among the few ticketed for Fourth of July fireworks, awaits his day in court

Yes, we need to have an Unjust Law Day. That way each and everyone of us can pick a law we see as unnecessary or unjust and disobey it. Good idea, angelus.

July 13, 2013 at 3:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Selective Obama

If you think about it it's really a moot point. For decades if a particular facet of enforcement of some governmental function was found to be "unpopular" with the new administration the White House could by proxy simply if not outright ignore the function/legislation choose to simply direct the appropriate people to under emphasize or "back burner" that activity. If during the budget talks, let's say, the IRS budget is trimmed, Treasury could cuts resources for auditing sharply which of course, would lead to far less audits. No law is broken in that case. Kind of shows you how unpopular Obamacare is. If this were an obvious constitutional or impeachable issue, don't you think the Republicans would jump on it? Most Republicans are hoping this bill will implode before being fully operation. Just sayin.

July 13, 2013 at 12:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dozens speak against Westar Energy's proposed rate increase and plan to 're-balance' rates

In a typical year what percentage of Westar's total operating cost does their executive pay package represent? Somehow I don't think slashing their overall compensation package as you note would have much effect even short term. Your proposed mandate "rolls off the tongue" nicely, however, and reminds of some of the 1970's anti-war hippie protester signs. Power to the People!!

July 12, 2013 at noon ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Rising rates

Of the groups listed above what is each individual groups percentage of consumption relative to total power produced? I certainly don't know. I suppose you could make an argument for one groups proposed increase to be 15% if that group uses approximately 15% of the power generated and represents the same percentage of cost of transmission, etc. If a group represents 50% of power consumed and only gets a 20% increase it wouldn't seem to make much sense.

July 11, 2013 at 9:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Court’s ruling is civil rights assault

The courts ruling basically stated you can't use 1960's "status quo" or standards, if you prefer, as the basis for the implementing current day voting rights act. If as many of you allude to the bill "has worked" then to the degree the bill has achieved success and positive changed has been the result, this change has to be reflected in how the bill is currently implemented. How can you say the bill has worked but no give credit to states for achieving their respective success by relaxing or changing how the bill is enforced in those areas. Its like sending a man to jail for robbery for five years and at the end of his five year sentence telling him "We're going to leave you here indefinitely because we have noticed your activity as a thief the last five years is way down so incarceration seems to work, so... here you stay."

July 8, 2013 at 2:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Attorney questions city's authority to issue no-bid contract for Rock Chalk Park

If everyone is convinced this action by the city is obviously "illegal" why not obtain an injunction against it? Sounds like a slam dunk to me.

July 2, 2013 at 1:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous