arizonajh2 (Bryan Moore)

Follow

Comment history

Letter: Clinton lie

Jim, I can't find anything on HRC being "disbarred for lying" when was this? Do you have a link? Justin she apologized for what? Using a server that though permitted at the time was probably not the best choice? So she did something legal but not the best option in hindsight, and she didn't know for sure who attackers were and their motives in the first 24 hours. Are those her crimes as you guys see them? If she is so dirty, flaunts the law at every turn, has violated codes, laws and shredded the constitution at every opportunity, please tell me why in all the investigations, probes and inquiries she has never been charged let alone convicted on so much as a Jay walking charge. Is she just that much smarter than all the Republicans their lawyers and minions? If every rube in red state land knows for sure that she is guilty, knows the crimes , knows the facts, knows the exact acts, processes and mechanisms that she employs to defraud the American people and rob them of their rights how is it that you can't find one prosecutor, DA, special council or congressional committee that can find anything to charge her with not to mention convict her of anything. Maybe you guys are just smarter than all those lame brains. You guys ever think of running for office? Maybe put that law degree to work become a prosecutor and get the job done. None of your idols seem to be able to.

October 30, 2015 at 9:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Clinton lie

That's the point Bob. No one knew for sure. She went with the claim of ownership of the attack untill they took it off the al Qiada website. By that time she had talked to several people. Then when the claim was removed they went back to the orgianal premise of another protest. Being wrong is not the same as lying. Lying is reports of yellow cake uranium when the documents were already proven to be forgeries. Lying is a vice president who on national tv as late as 2006 is saying that Sadam Hussain was directly involved in 9/11. Lying is an administration telling inspectors that they know there are WMD and exactly where they are, when none existed. Curveball intel, aluminum centrifuge tubes, al Qiada training bases in Sadams Iraq, cladestine meetings in Prague - all lies or really poor intelligence info, all generated over months of fact finding. But yes, in a matter of days Obama, Clinton, and the American public should have rock solid, unchangeable proof of who, why, how many, all group affiliations, motives, sub motives, weapons used, clothes worn, religious sects, parents, siblings, friends ,associates, phone numbers and shoe sizes of all involved . If any info changes after 24 hours all members of the Obama administration should be tried for treason and summarily hung, shot, burned, names removed from all official documents, text books and sir names permanently removed from the English language. Because if the intelligence changes then it was all a lie to deceive the American public in an attempt to set up a dictatorship, take all guns and force everyone to get abortions and marry someone of the same sex.

October 30, 2015 at 6:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Clinton lie

I guess I must have misunderstood the exchange during the hearings. I could of swore I heard Clinton say that she did email Chelsea on the 11th, and that she spoke to the Egyptian official the next day. She also said that on the 11th that an affiliate of Al Quaida (answar al something) on their website claimed that they with others had planned the attack. She then went on to say that the al Qiada group then pulled it off the site the 12th (or 13th). At that point they were back to square one on origins and causes. Anyone who says there were no protests over the video going on all over the Muslim world must have a terrible memory. So that was a strong possibility as a cause. Now that info changes, that leads are identified, pursued, and rejected or substantiated, held in high confidence and later found to be faulty is pretty much par for the course. That she could have emailed her daughter with what she thought to be correct on the 11th only to find out on the 12th that it had changed does not seem to be criminal to me. They still can't say definately that Russia shot down the airliner in Ukraine. We have videos of police doing things that we can't decide if they are justified or not and they happen here in the US in broad daylight with multiple witnesses. I find it more disturbing that within 24 hours of 9/11/2001 we had pictures and bios on a 19 hijackers or that the plane that crashed in New York days after was ruled an structural failure within 48 hours when the average crash investigation takes months if not years to complete.

October 30, 2015 at 4:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What creature would you bring back from extinction?

The Dodo. Unable to fly because of generations worth of abundant resources and lack of rivals it became the symbol of obsolescence because it didn't fear people and was unable to recognize and react to the changing world around it. Oh, wait. Never mind, I was just informed they found a whole flock of Dodo's at the statehouse in Topeka squawking about tax policy. My bad.

June 12, 2015 at 2:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

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 Factcheck.org says about that claim, they call it false. Politifact.com 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.” Factcheck.org 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 )

Previous