connected

Follow

Comment history

Leaders laud completion of SLT at ribbon-cutting; road to open to traffic on Wednesday

Stacy, they were not man-made. Read soil analysis. The NATURAL wetlands were man-DRAINED which was a fail. Please educate yourself.

November 6, 2016 at 1:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

After more than two decades of argument, SLT to open; reflections on the fight that enveloped the community

the price of ignorance is rarely understood by the ignorant.

November 4, 2016 at 1:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

After more than two decades of argument, SLT to open; reflections on the fight that enveloped the community

yeah florida did great as an example. how about doing some research. who really doesn't think to make such a statement without research? 100s of thousands of man made failures to LEARN anything in this country where IGNORANCE thrives. mitigate THAT.

November 4, 2016 at 3:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

After more than two decades of argument, SLT to open; reflections on the fight that enveloped the community

yeah well IF the MONEY didn't have such a BLATANTLY direct route into certain coffers, the SLT would have been MUCH less EXPENSIVE, bob, even TODAY if was done properly, PERIOD. Baker made BANK. THANK THE POMPOUS POLITICAL POCKET PROFITEERS. but while you follow the money trail, you are BLIND.

November 4, 2016 at 3:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Delaware tribe takes next step in development plan for North Lawrence property

This started prior to that. Good guess though.

July 10, 2016 at 5:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Delaware tribe takes next step in development plan for North Lawrence property

What other people buying 90 acres in Douglas County, KS have had to go through this kind of nonsense?

July 10, 2016 at 7:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Haskell faculty, students call Washington Redskins poll results 'crazy'

Am giving information. About this topic. No idea who Richard is or what he does and this is not a competition. Trust me, i dig humor and sarcasm. There are, however, MUCH better places for it than here and now, IMHO.

May 21, 2016 at 7:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Haskell faculty, students call Washington Redskins poll results 'crazy'

"During the entire history of America until the turn of the twentieth century, Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly removed from their lands by European settlers.[19] This includes the paying of bounties beginning in the colonial period with, for example, a proclamation declaring war against the Penobscot Indians in 1755. Issued by Lieutenant Governor Spencer Phips (and commonly as the Phips Proclamation[20][21]), the proclamation orders "His Majesty's subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians." The colonial government paid 50 pounds for scalps of males over 12 years, 25 pounds for scalps of women over 12, and 20 pounds for scalps of boys and girls under 12. Twenty-five British pounds sterling in 1755, worth around $9,000 today—a small fortune in those days when an English teacher earned 60 pounds a year.[20]

Though the proclamation itself does not use the word, an historical association between the use of "redskin" and the paying of bounties can be made from newspapers of the time. In 1863, a Winona, Minnesota, newspaper, the Daily Republican, printed an announcement: "The state reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth."[22] A news story published by the Atchison Daily Champion in Atchison, Kansas, on October 9, 1885, tells of the settlers' "hunt for redskins, with a view of obtaining their scalps" valued at $250.[23] In An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States, "redskin" is said not to refer to scalps, but to the bloody bodies left behind by scalp-hunters.[24] This association can evoke strongly negative sentiments. In a 2014 interview after the Trademark decision, lead petitioner Amanda Blackhorse expressed her opinion: "The name itself actually dates back [to] the time when the Native American population was being exterminated, and bounty hunters were hired to kill Native American people [...] So, in order to show that they made their kill, they had to bring back a scalp or their skin."[25]" (from Wikipedia)

Yes I am going to post that AGAIN. This time for you, Armen Kurdian. Would you like to repeat YOUR comment again?

May 21, 2016 at 12:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Haskell faculty, students call Washington Redskins poll results 'crazy'

"During the entire history of America until the turn of the twentieth century, Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly removed from their lands by European settlers.[19] This includes the paying of bounties beginning in the colonial period with, for example, a proclamation declaring war against the Penobscot Indians in 1755. Issued by Lieutenant Governor Spencer Phips (and commonly as the Phips Proclamation[20][21]), the proclamation orders "His Majesty's subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians." The colonial government paid 50 pounds for scalps of males over 12 years, 25 pounds for scalps of women over 12, and 20 pounds for scalps of boys and girls under 12. Twenty-five British pounds sterling in 1755, worth around $9,000 today—a small fortune in those days when an English teacher earned 60 pounds a year.[20]

Though the proclamation itself does not use the word, an historical association between the use of "redskin" and the paying of bounties can be made from newspapers of the time. In 1863, a Winona, Minnesota, newspaper, the Daily Republican, printed an announcement: "The state reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth."[22] A news story published by the Atchison Daily Champion in Atchison, Kansas, on October 9, 1885, tells of the settlers' "hunt for redskins, with a view of obtaining their scalps" valued at $250.[23] In An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States, "redskin" is said not to refer to scalps, but to the bloody bodies left behind by scalp-hunters.[24] This association can evoke strongly negative sentiments. In a 2014 interview after the Trademark decision, lead petitioner Amanda Blackhorse expressed her opinion: "The name itself actually dates back [to] the time when the Native American population was being exterminated, and bounty hunters were hired to kill Native American people [...] So, in order to show that they made their kill, they had to bring back a scalp or their skin."[25]" (from Wikipedia)

THAT is NOT serious, Kathleen? Human decency isn't serious? Why isn't respect for people indigenous to this continent -- descendants of those who SURVIVED this GENOCIDE -- seriously happening? Seriously sad it's so easy for you, Kathleen, and others, to insist this is meaningless and undeserving of attention.

May 21, 2016 at 12:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous