Comment history

With looming cash crisis, GOP leaders see need to fix Kansas budget quickly

"Among the items not included, but which reportedly will be in the later bill, is the additional $53 million needed to fully fund the K-12 school finance formula. That’s the additional money needed for equalization aid to poor districts for their capital outlay and local option budgets."

Of course they don't include that right away. That would facilitate debate over it. They'll tack it on at the last possible second, probably after midnight.

Considering that this piece is precisely what the Supreme Court ruled MUST be funded, I assume this is an orchestrated test of the court's willingness to back up their rulings.

I certainly hope that two weeks from now when this becomes law our Supreme Court will find the gonadal fortitude to hold all guilty parties in contempt of court.

January 29, 2015 at 10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

New revenue numbers show $715 million shortfall through 2016

These yahoos won't cut public school funding - on paper. The statute will remain as is, or even increase - on paper.

They just won't actually send the money to school districts. Wait and see.

November 11, 2014 at 7:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Court: Voters can register without proof of citizenship

Anyone who is blocked from voting in state elections should refuse to pay state taxes. Taxation without representation & such. Watch the Kobach & Co Tea Party folks heads explode trying to comprehend their own whackadoodleness over the irony.

November 10, 2014 at 8:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas asks appeals court to stay marriage ruling

The idiocy of bigoted arguments fascinates me. Marriage equality won't lead to polygamous or bestial marriages because those are prohibited across the board. The current problem is we're treating different people differently under the law, and that is unconstitutional.

And the nonsense arguments about procreation and the need for kids to have a mom and dad to raise them? If you folks really believed that justified your position, you would also prohibit childless marriages, divorce, and unwed childbearing. So how about a constitutional amendment requiring childless marriages be annulled, prohibiting divorce of parents, and mandatory abortions for unwed mothers? No? Didn't think so.

November 8, 2014 at 12:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas asks appeals court to stay marriage ruling

Terry, you are correct that the power to regulate marriage has been left to the states; as per the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

However, like so many others who try to hide their homophobia behind the US Constitution in this manner, you conveniently ignore the phrase "...nor prohibited by it to the states,...". This piece is very important: it means that states can do what they want regarding a whole lotta things, provided those state-level doings aren't prohibited by the US Constitution.

Now, go back to 9th grade civics class and refresh your memory about the 14th Amendment. It's a bit long, but the good news is you only have to study the first part, and only part of that, no less. It goes something like this:

"No state shall....... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, if a state is going to allow the legal contract we call "marriage", then that option must be available to everyone - not just people that you personally are comfortable with. The fact that such discrimination exists within a state constitution or that the people of the state voted to put it there is irrelevant.

Religion, likewise, is irrelevant. Check the 1st Amendment on that while you're at it. If you're religiously opposed to same-sex marriage, you are free to not marry someone of your sex. Freedom of religion doesn't mean you get to make everyone else follow your religion. End of story.

November 7, 2014 at 3:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Citizenship law hits young voters, low-income neighborhoods hardest

Makes no difference if it's $15, $15,000, or $0.15. It's still a poll tax, and thus unconstitutional.

If voter fraud were really a problem, I'm sure Kobach & Co. would gladly share with us a list of cases they are currently investigating and prosecutions in progress. As far as I know, the list of investigations/prosecutions is up to a grand total of zero.

This is a concerted effort to suppress voting. IMO, anyone who says otherwise is either complicit or startlingly gullible.

October 31, 2014 at 8:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Citizenship law hits young voters, low-income neighborhoods hardest

Free if you were born here, a poorly-disguised poll tax if you were born someplace else. Gee, who might be registering in KS for the first time? Folks who just moved here, among others.

October 30, 2014 at 2:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Citizenship law hits young voters, low-income neighborhoods hardest

Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from buying guns. But, Mr. Gregory, we all know that folks like you and Kobach would be the first to cry foul if somebody passed a law requiring proof of citizenship to buy a gun.

I'd be the next one to cry foul. The difference is, folks like me are worried about protecting ALL rights, for ALL people. That includes voting rights.

October 30, 2014 at 2:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Misleading figure

You're right, M. However, you missed the point. Brownback is lying every time he claims that 70% of Kansans support marriage inequality.

October 24, 2014 at 9:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback, Davis discuss gay marriage at Kansas gubernatorial debate

Jeff, please go back and repeat 9th grade civics class. You obviously have no clue how our government is structured, of the separation of powers, or of the hierarchy between state and federal governments.

October 21, 2014 at 8:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )