arizonajh2 (Bryan Moore)


Comment history

Letter: Party first?

Typical conservative B.S. What do you want to compromise on the ACA about? Is there a provision like - we agree to repeal the 'kids on parents insurance till 26' and you'll set up exchanges in the states that didn't opt to previously? Is that the type of compromise or is your idea of compromise letting the congress repeal it on their 50th attempt? If so, you don't want compromise you want elimination! Fast and Furious? What is it you want to compromise on? You want Holder to turn himself in to Sheriff Joe and beg forgiveness for running a sting operation that he was at best tangentially aware of? Benghazi? How many investigations do you want before you feel appeased? What is your idea of compromise? Obama and Clinton turn themselves over for execution? Foreign Policy is usually set by the President through the State department. Do you want a permanent Republican overseer for foreign policy is that your compromise? Should a Democratic President always have to clear Foreign policy with a Republican group before doing anything on the world stage? Emigration laws? Really? The least number of illegals crossing our southern border in decades and you want him to compromise on what? Even more increase in Border Patrol strength than he has already implemented? Do you want him to stop the deportation policy of prioritization of violent offenders going first and make sure more street taco vendors and hotel maids are roughed up and sent packing instead? Transparency is one thing I do have a beef with personally but it is not like Republican Presidents are all open doors, look at the books guy's either. Like a lot of things almost every politician says during campaigns, some things are far more difficult to achieve in practice than they are to muse about in a stump speech (Gitmo comes to mind). Let me know what your idea of compromise on these issues is (i.e. not just say "Benghazi" but tell us what the compromise would be) and then get back to us.

July 23, 2014 at 1:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Party first?

Yes the ACA was a compromise! The left wanted single payer but we adopted the old republican plan that is the ACA. Yes, it was rammed through congress with only a year or so of debate, oh the blinding speed of the U.S. government! Reid changed the rules after years of Republican obstructionism (was filibustering every nominee to practically every position the Republicans idea of a way to promote compromise?).
Name the 13 cases that Obama has lost in the supreme court. I know you got this from FOX news because Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte was making that claim on Fox News Sunday early this month. You might want to check out what says about that claim, they call it false. also gave it a false rating. Scotus blog called it a "concocted statistic". Richard Lempert, a nonresident senior fellow with the Brookings Institution and an emeritus law professor at the University of Michigan, reviewed Goodlatte’s list of cases for us and said that “only Noel Canning can be fairly cited to support this position. According to his spokeswoman, Goodlatte is pointing to nine Supreme Court decisions described in a report by Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, and another four unanimous decisions that have occurred since. Lempert told us Cruz’s characterization of the cases in his report “is for the most part dishonest.”
Several of the cases began during the George W. Bush administration, and the Obama administration continued advocating the same position. Also, Lempert says, these cases weren’t about the extent of presidential power, but “rather they concerned technical and jurisdictional issues or the meaning of statutory language.” 7/3/14.

July 23, 2014 at 1:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Should parents have to give permission before a student receives sex education?

Ok, first of all we're talking about junior high kids, not high school. I don't think teaching welding to a 13 year old is going to land him a job for a few more years (don't get me wrong I love welding, but my father taught me). I was taught sex-education in school in 5th grade in a little town just outside Lawrence and that was in 1976, guess that's not the "old ways" you were thinking of, huh? I still had time to learn everything else that I needed to know from school to get a good job. I got a job in a trade after high school and worked for years until I got through college and have spent the last 20 years in structural engineering. Man and to think it was almost all blown because some teacher wanted me to know how to prevent STD's and pregnancy, whew dodged that bullet! A child will spend somewhere around 14,000 to 15,000 hours in K-12 I think an hour or two or even a day or two on health is not going to cripple their future earning potential.

February 18, 2014 at 3:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas House approves allowing businesses to deny service to same-sex couples

Brock - What if there is no other business to patronize? Maybe I'm confused but is this like Obamacare were the businesses are split by employee number? Mom and pops can discriminate but not if you have over 50 employees? If not, can a privately held power company say it won't provide power to the homes or businesses of gay people even though there is no other power company from which to buy power? I guess they could always go out and buy a generator, that is if the gas station will sell them anything to put in it. What about a privately held water company? Can the water company say we will provide water to a dance club but not a gay bar? Can they refuse the dance club if they feel dancing is against their religion? Can the only gas station, store, or diner within 100 miles refuse service because someone looks a little too light in their loafers? Do they have to have proof of gayness or is wearing a pink shirt enough to prove a guy is gay? If no proof of being gay is needed then isn't it just an I don't like the way they look law. What distance does it become an unreasonable distance to travel to find the "others". I see how your theory works in the middle of a large town or city but what about in sparsely populated areas of the state. If a lesbian gets a flat tire in Greely County is OK to discriminate because there is a tire shop in Douglas County that will fix her tire? How far should she have to walk to find a shop that is OK with her lifestyle? The ability for someone to come in and open a shop does not constitute access. Say I want to set up a tire place in Greely county to service that road weary lesbian is OK for the other businesses to not do business with me because I provide services to people they do not agree with? I don't think anyone could sustain a bussiness to cater only to the occasional gay or lesbian with car trouble in western Kansas?

February 13, 2014 at 9:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: No room for gun compromise

" I'd guess that a substantial portion of people who submit to background checks already own guns."
Isn't that the point? Now only those who can legally buy a gun would even try to buy one where they have background checks. Why would they try to buy one if they know the system required will not allow it. Will a criminal still get a gun? Probably, but we don't have to make it easy on him. If we can't stop them, I'd prefer they get the worst, most neglected firearms possible in the hope that they would malfunction at a critical time and not brand new ones from a gun show or dealer (not that I have any faith that most of these lowlifes have the first idea of how to maintain a weapon to where it wasn't giving them fits after a couple of uses). Now how they would do checks on individuals buying from each other as some have suggested, I have no idea. But let's at least get the low hanging fruit.

January 10, 2014 at 4:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: No room for gun compromise

Max Weber also defined the "State" as an entity which successfully claims a "monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory". So even if the Militia (under British rule) existed before the State (Massachusetts) is not the use of legitimate force still the sole purview of the State (according to Weber - if we are going to use a German sociologist to define US law)? Also are you saying that when the founding fathers wrote the 2nd that things like "squad automatic weapons, light machineguns, general purpose machineguns" where taken into consideration ("so long as they keep within the terms of small arms") and therefore are addressed by the original wording of the 2nd? It says arms. Not light arms, not small arms and no mention of "weapons" or "crews" anywhere. Those are your words not theirs. You are using a modern definition and applying it to something written 240 years ago. That's like saying that they envisioned the television and that the laws around broadcasted speech and their effect on the 1st, to conform to the present reality should not be allowed. And therein is the problem. All what you said makes sense given the terms as you define them, but they may not be the way I define them. You say it is a failsafe, for the people to throw off the government to ensure the nation the founding fathers envisioned. How many people have to feel this way to make the militia legitimate? Who defines what the founding fathers envisioned? My version or your's? Heck the founding fathers didn't agree on everything! Which founders? Washington? Jefferson? Franklin? Do you really think they all agreed on everything?

January 10, 2014 at 11:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: No room for gun compromise

That's not really here or there. The question is "are the laws passed regarding gun ownership and use violating the second amendment?" I have first Amendment rights and I can buy a newspaper and exercise those rights in a big way. Can the average person afford to own a newspaper? No. Is it an infringement on his rights that it is expensive? No. I bet Dolph feels this paper is a "White Elephant" at times. He could do something cheaper like become a journalist and get an opinion column like Will or Pitts or just write a blog. You say you can buy "far better long range rifles for less money" and that is my point! You can buy a multitude of rifles in many calibers that fits what you want and like. You can replace the stocks, add scopes and expanded magazines. You can buy ammo in almost unlimited amounts, hollow points, soft points, jacketed, wad cutters etc from various makers. My question to Bob is what is the 95 to 99% of guns or uses of guns that the law is depriving him of. The story he posted said 9/10s of his gun rights had been taken away before 4 more bites were taken out of what was left, leaving only "crumbs" of what the cake (2nd amendment) originally was. All I want to know is what is that 95 - 99% that is forbidden by law (and not by economics) and if these restrictions exist and be they 1% or 99% of of the cake are these anymore intrusive than the restrictions we put on the other amendments?

January 10, 2014 at 10:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: No room for gun compromise

Really Bob? So by that little story you're saying that the gun laws of this nation are holding back, what 95% to 99% of the guns you want and how you want to use them? With being able to buy almost any type of gun I want from a little stub nose .38 to a .50 cal sniper rifle, from pellet to AK's, and I can carry everywhere from church to the bank, from city hall to national parks (an ability that has expanded greatly of late), what/where is this 99% that you lack? Do SBR's and SBS's along with full auto's and silencers constitute 99% of gun rights? It seems to me that no one took your cake. Somebody may have removed a bit of the icing because they saw a fly land on it and didn't want it to make anyone sick. Now it may not appear as pristine as you would like it but I think if you take another look, 99% of your cake is still there not the other way around. If the way it is now is 95 to 99 percent repression of gun ownership and use, I shudder to think what this society would be like if we released that 95% more access and variety upon our streets.

January 9, 2014 at 10:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Loss of trust

Nice, You just invoked Politifacts Lie of the Year 2010:' A Government takeover of Healthcare' in decrying Politifacts Lie of the Year 2013! Well done sir! How is government doing anything but saying you can't run around with no insurance and then stick everyone else with the bill if you get in an accident? In fact it is a Republican idea! I liked it then and I still do now. That means I don't hate it, so you just lied saying "everyone hates it" (see how I did that and how easy it is to turn you into a liar, even though I know that is not what you really meant?). So what would be your idea about how to get the other 15% insured under the old system? Remember anything you say that doesn't work out exactly the way you say or want is a bold faced lie and an impeachable offense. Also of 14 countries surveyed by The Commonwealth Fund for satisfaction with national healthcare, the British were the most satisfied with their healthcare of all the populations surveyed. They were the most confident that in the event of illness, they would receive the best and most up-to-date treatment; and they were the least worried that their personal finances would prevent them from receiving proper treatment.

December 24, 2013 at 1:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Loss of trust

You are not really serious are you?
The "WMD" lie was not one lie but many.
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
"We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.
"Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.
And then there were the associated lies about Iraq.
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002 .
"We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.
"This government does not torture people," -- President Bush Sept 2007
This does not even include the lies Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice were telling about Iraq.
And then the lies on the way to the White House
I'm against Nation Building. (repeated multiple times during the run up to the 2000 election)
I was never arrested after 1972, Bush told Dallas Morning News in 1999 (he was arrested for DUI in 1976 in Maine)

Did Obama lie about "keeping your plan/doctor? Yes, but to say "He didn't lie" when talking about Bush is just selective memory. Also putting Clinton lying about sex between two consenting adults on par with lying us into war is just ridiculous.

December 24, 2013 at 12:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )