caughtinthemiddle (Greg Cooper)

Follow

Comment history

Letter: God’s judgment

Carl, I have read many of your "credos" and let you pass without comment. But, pardner, when you make blanket statements such as "Bible-believing Christians and others believe that it should be defined as the union of a man and a woman", I see red.

Who are you, Carl Burkhead, to lump all Christians into your bigoted view of the Bible? Who are you to tell me I don't have the right to believe as I do and still be a "Bible believing Christian"? Just who are you to be my voice in any discussion concerning me?

Carl, you make me angry when you make that blanket statement. But, more than that, you make me sad, because it's people such as you who have not gotten the message of God's love for ALL people. God loves all people, Carl. That does not mean he likes what they do, sometimes. It just means everyone is judged, by God, on the lives they live and the faith they have and the things they do.

And accusing me of not believing is tantamount to sin, Carl, because you are by no means God, and you may not take his task as yours. Even Christ had compassion for the sinner, and you know it. You know the passage, Carl. Try living it. If you feel that different people deserve a different judgment then that's fine. But you, kiddo, are not the judge, especially of me, and it would behoove you, Carl, to take to heart the admonition found in the Bible you are so fond of misinterpreting. God will not love you less for opening your mind.

May 14, 2015 at 7:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: God’s judgment

Race discrimination law comes to mind. Do you advocate going back to what we had before, Bart? Just a thought.

May 14, 2015 at 6:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Renewable energy bill more about ideology than environment

interesting information, Andy. Thank you for your citation.

I wonder, though, what the cost of electricity in Germany was fifteen years ago as compared to its neighbors. If that can be established, then the cost of alternative versus conventional energy might become a real issue.

However, Andy, that still leaves the ecological impact of both energies as an issue, and it's hard not seeing sun or wind production as less impactful on the environment.

May 14, 2015 at 7:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas lawmakers gravitate toward raising state's sales tax

God, Andy,there are more of you? (shudder)

May 13, 2015 at 3:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas abortion foes seek change in law to help with lawsuit

Great idea, Legislature: if a law conflicts with the marching orders you've been given, change it. Pay no never mind to the fact that there may be science behind the law. We don't need no stinking science.

May 13, 2015 at 2:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Renewable energy bill more about ideology than environment

You certainly have a lot of information, Mary. Maybe you can share with us your sources, since you are trying so valiantly to sway our minds on this issue.

Or, maybe you can't. That's my bet, Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman. Maybe facts are something you don't like to face:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhlZd...

May 13, 2015 at 2:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Renewable energy bill more about ideology than environment

Mary, I think you're ignoring some salient facts. We do generate electricity using natural gas, and the Koch consortium has a great interest in that commodity. The oil industry, as represented by them, faces a shortfall in gas sales if renewable energy should become a major player in the electricity generating system.

Also, your statement that the "ONLY reason to build wind installations is to shelter money" is hogwash. Perhaps you can ignore the jobs created by the industry, but many of us can not. Wind is an alternative to burning petroleum or nuclear energy, and an alternative only, at this time. The use of wind energy will allow the nation, and the world, to become a bit less dependent on petroleum and coal, thereby reducing human impact on the environment. If you think that to be a non-issue, then you must have no children or grandchildren about whom you care enough to leave them a better world.

And, as far as the Kochs "owning' politicians, you might look back in Kansas history a few years and recall which group of politicians signed a loyalty oath to their party. It sure wasn't the Democrats of Independents, Mary, but those who have membership in the Koch-sponsored political groups espousing the faux-libertarian, "small government", intrusive policies rife in Kansas politics.

You have a right to your opinions, Mary, but you have the responsibility, as a Kansas citizen, to make sure of your facts before you sign on this, or any other forum. Your defending something that nobody wanted in the first place is suspect and silly.

It would be interesting to know just why this issue is sops important that you signed on in the first place, and might just lend credence to your argument. Any comment?

May 13, 2015 at 11:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas House panel passes bill to end business tax break

Again, big boy, what wasteful, complex stuff do you see that can be eliminated? It's easy to rail about something without disclosing the villain.

Do it. Explain, delineate. Either that, or go away. Your tireless raving about things you, apparently, know nothing is not constructive.

May 11, 2015 at 1:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

KCK superintendent tells court new funding mechanism is ineffective and is costing schools millions of dollars

Perfectly correct, and that makes them just as efficient.

May 9, 2015 at 6:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

KCK superintendent tells court new funding mechanism is ineffective and is costing schools millions of dollars

So, Lawrence school district got $3.02M from the local taxpayers, over 10 years, or about $302,000 per year, to cushion the legislature's penury. Doesn't sound like a lot, now, does it, when compared to a district budget of approximately $63,000,000. So, the taxpayers allowed the school to average a bit over 4% "savings account", if the entire $302,000 per year was actually kept and is still "in the bank". Does the state have a 4% cash cushion to fall back on? Do you think the state should have such a thing? Doesn't that sound like pretty good money management? And why do you throw that number out as a negative? Seems to me that sound money management is a good thing, and not something to be sneered at.

The whole issue, Mr. Trabert, is that it must make the state fairly angry when a school district can manage its money better than can the state.

My math: $3,020,000/10 years=$302,000 per year. District budget is about $63,000,000 per year. $302,000/$63,000,000=.0047%times 10 years=about 4.7%. And , again, this "savings account" amount assumes that each $302,000 remains in the district for 10 years.

May 8, 2015 at 4:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )