caughtinthemiddle (Greg Cooper)


Comment history

Clinton, Kobach spar in social media flap over voting rights

I believe you're correct about the Jesus thing, and I hope we are among the fortunate ones.

As far as not reading your posts, it seems to me that you have lost track of the nature of conversation, which is to pass along to others opinions backed by fact leading to conclusions. Now, in your case your "conversation" nearly always consists of pass along insult, backed by nothing but your ill-formed opinion of them, and leading to nothing but silly, childish "I know you are but what am I".

Either get a life, or exhibit that you actually have one that has meaning. Otherwise, have a great day.

August 29, 2015 at 9:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

KU, student, teacher with Koch ties reach settlement in case over $1,800 records request

It seems to me, Carol, that all of KPI's statements are opinions, backed with nothing but wishful thinking advocating control of everything by "business interests". This is what got Brownkoch elected: lies put forth as fact, projection presented as truth.

This is what Ms. Kraus is pursuing, in the end, that KU students are being indoctrinated by Koch, faux libertarian economic voodoo. And I, for one, am very, very afraid of this as an ongoing program, sponsored by Kansas University.

August 29, 2015 at 9:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Court hears case challenging constitutionality of new law on selecting chief judges and judicial funding

And, how much of our tax money will this cabal spend defending THIS indefensible law, huh?

August 29, 2015 at 9:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

KU, student, teacher with Koch ties reach settlement in case over $1,800 records request

Thank you, Tom. Your comment, coming from one who actually is a businessman, are appreciated and important.

August 28, 2015 at 2:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Clinton, Kobach spar in social media flap over voting rights

Justin, really, just stop. "It is better to be thought a fool than to prove it by your words." You, in my opinion, have crossed that line. It's been said in many ways by many people, and is not an original thought of mine, but it certainly applies here.

You need to open your mind before you open your mouth (or type what you want to come out of your mouth).

August 28, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kobach: Trump correct on immigration proposals

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

George Santayana

August 28, 2015 at 10:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Church, state

Richard, if you'll do some research, you'll find that the Court, at that time, had had no cases that led to the establishment of the "personhood" of slaves, so, yes, they did only what could be done and denied citizenship to slaves. As soon as the issue of "personhood" was raised with the Court, slaves became citizens.

The Court can not make sweeping changes in the law or the Constitution absent a case filed that prays for a change. The court takes care to rule very narrowly to avoid changing things that have not been asked. Thus, the Court moves slowly and specifically, avoiding wholesale changes in the Constitution, and keeping the spirit of the document alive while molding its rulings to be within the Constitution and protecting the sanctity of the original ideals.

Hope this helps.

August 28, 2015 at 10:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Church, state

OK, Greg, I have read it, have studied it, and I understand your point. What is being left out of most of this discussion (not including the childish pissing match between a couple of posters) is that the Constitution is a living, breathing entity, one that was written to be attuned to the unique needs of the world's newest "democracy", and that addressed what, at the time, were the tyrannies from which the new world pilgrims emigrated.

The founders of the nation were intelligent enough to know that human society is a changing, evolving thing, and that no set of specific laws or customs would make the future sacrosanct without review and definition. It is their foresight that allowed the document to be constantly reviewed and codified in order that it might address the basics of the original democratic experiment while allowing for the betterment of all who live under its umbrella.

In this case, religion, addressed specifically in the original document and addressed by many scholars, politicians, and courts, is encouraged, but is not to be sponsored in any way by any governmental entity, in order that no "state religion" be established. The judiciary has endlessly upheld that "freedom of and from religion" doctrine, and, it seems to me, that there is really no argument here.

This woman needs merely show a causable relationship between religious practice and her keeping her job and the deal is done. Absent that, she loses, the Constitution wins, and we go on.

August 28, 2015 at 9:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

KU, student, teacher with Koch ties reach settlement in case over $1,800 records request

The issues are many, and too numerous to go into on this forum. But I do have one that impacts the state immediately, and that is the reputation of the University of Kansas as a sponsoring institution of these papers listed in the above citation from Mike Green.

If, indeed, these papers and position statements are to be linked to the University, it seems to me that there should be answering papers, from the same department, at least purporting to show academic give and take. After having read just two of them, I have come to the conclusion that the opinions stated are, at best, just opinions, without opposing points and without academic care being taken to make them exercises in anything but putting forth a p[articular agenda.

This scares me, in that the University, citing academic freedom as its guiding light, promulgates the opposite by allowing this kind of propaganda to be published as academic exercise.

August 28, 2015 at 9:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advocacy group's CEO sees new issues with Kansas welfare law

Surprise, surprise, surprise. Kansas passed a law that conflicts with Federal law. Surprise.


August 27, 2015 at 5:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )