Advertisement

foppa

Follow

Comment history

Jayhawk fans storm downtown to bask in afterglow of Final Four victory

To all of you who criticize what happen yesterday on here. Here are a few tips:
1. Relax a little
2. Don't go to mass. St
3. If you live in old west Lawrence close all windows and doors AND realize that you live in a college town that really cares about basketball (in case you didn't already know that)
4. Seriously, calm down. If you care enough to be angry about it and post your opinion here after a clearly joyous night for ku students you should truly re-evaluate your priorities.

Perhaps the city works with the crowd because they realize that it is easier than arresting thousands. Also, they know that the people out there are (or are studying to be) architects, politicians, lawyers, teachers, etc. and they are just having fun because their team won. I don't like that people vandalize cars on mass. Either but I understand that in a big crown there will be dumb people. We all known that it is probably a bad idea to park your car on mass. In the first place.
I also think that the reason why so many people are out there this season is because we were not expecting to get this far. I am not sure that that amount of people will show up in other circumstances.
My point is that if this is truly you something that ruins your day you need to calm down a bit. This is a college town that likes basketball and you probably knew this before moving here. So enjoy whatever makes you happy and stop being bothered by something this silly and , though I 100% support your right to say whatever you want, I really wish we all didn't have to hear about it (this message does not apply to the people whose cars were damaged, you should probably be bothered by that fact).

April 1, 2012 at 1:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas lawmakers want to review food stamps change

***As of 2005, the Social Security Administration had reported that undocumented immigrants had paid about $520 billion dollars into Social Security. Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for these benefits ( National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences)
*** Between one-half and three-quarters of undocumented immigrants pay federal and state income taxes, Social Security taxes, and Medicare taxes. And all undocumented immigrants pay sales taxes

You are making a big assumption here. All undocumented immigrants do not work for cash (see above). If a person is using a fraudulent SS number to work, the SRS can still pull up WHERE that social security is used. Most of the time, the SRS workers (the good ones anyways) also asks employers directly to fill out income sheets OR asks the person to get the income from their boss with contact information.
Although what you are saying is an argument that I hear over and over, I find that many of the people who think this way have little experience with the actual system and how it actually works.

January 25, 2012 at 9 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas Sec. of State Kris Kobach won't end push to get voter ID requirements in place by 2012

Thank you, Kobach for finally addressing a non-issue. What a guy!

May 12, 2011 at 11:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach defends stance on illegal immigration at Lied Center

I am going to talk on behalf of legal residents and say 'thanks, but no thanks.' However, I do hope that the Trumpster gets elected president so he can tell us all that we are fired. Nothing better than a president with a catch phrase.

April 13, 2011 at 11:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach defends stance on illegal immigration at Lied Center

I sat through what his speech and I never ONCE heard an "according to (insert governmental or independent research institution)" He DID say a lot of facts that he never backed up with a source. Yet, people think that he is telling the truth? It is disappointing that people don't bother asking where he gets his facts. In the talk, for example, he was telling a story about government officials from the state of Sonora, Mexico coming to Arizonan officials and telling them to stop the law because too many people were going back to Mexico and they couldn't handle that. He told the people "its true, google it." I googled it and found NO SUCH STORY from a credible source. I found a few nationalist web sites that mentioned it but I looked in English and Spanish newspapers and found nothing. THAT STORY IS NOT TRUE. Yet, people there stood up and clapped for lies. I am sure they think they are hearing the facts, which is the saddest thing of all.
He also mentioned that Mexico is poor because of its corruption and that is true. No doubt that the Mexican government, from the president to the mayor in the smallest towns, are all corrupt. But there are numbers that link NAFTA to the poverty of Mexican farmers. Farmers that then come to America to work.
The message of his talk, I thought, was pretty clear: The United States government has the duty to protect and act in the behalf of US Citizens... unless they happen to be born to illegal immigrants. In which case, they can just go back to Mexico (or whatever other country) and go to school there and then come back when they are 18 and have the same opportunities as everyone else (he literally said this).

April 13, 2011 at 11:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Heard on the Hill: KU bowling team headed to nationals; questions for Kobach lecture must be submitted in advance; KU student picked to go on PBS-sponsored Freedom Ride in May

I am a bit dissapoitnted that you dont mention the peaceful protest that will be happening outside. i know you guys have the info. for it.

April 8, 2011 at 2:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence residents on both sides of adding gender identity to anti-discrimination policy speak out

You are saying that homosexuals are already covered by other discrimination laws, so why have one specifically for them, right?
Because it specifies that employers, etc. can't discriminate against them BECAUSE of sexual orientation. As in, if a person is ONLY being discriminated against because of being straight, then the religion and sex discrimination laws would not protect them.

Again, it appears that you are saying that there should be no anti-discrimination laws at all because we are all covered under 'humans.' The law then should be 'do not discriminate against all humans.' Right?

Most of all, if you believe that at the end of the day these laws don't do much. Why fight so hard to keep gender identity out? Perhaps it is because, as we establish earlier, you believe homosexual activity (your code word for homosexuality in general) is a sin. Unfortunately for you, your religion is not a measuring stick for what we want or laws to be. My religious beliefs aren't either.

April 8, 2011 at 2:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence residents on both sides of adding gender identity to anti-discrimination policy speak out

No, I understand that you are obviously not coming from the point of view that I come from (I was using my husband's account before. I apologize for the confusion). I am sorry if I made assumptions. I wanted to clarify exactly what you believe so I was trying to ask if the assumptions I made were true.

As it stands today, the law says this "the practice or policy against discrimination by person for reasons of race, sex, religion, color, national origin, age, ancestry, familial status, sexual orientation, or disability is a matter of concern to the city of lawrence..." Then the law defines sexual orientations as "heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality" (Section 10.102.26) It follows to say that "sexual orientation shall not mean conduct which is prohibited by law." The law does continue to explain what discrimination is, by the way, but it is too long for me to write here. So, as you can see. It is pretty clear in the law, by the definition of sexual orientation, that a homosexual person CAN'T discriminate against you for being heterosexual. "If there is a general law that is against discrimination, then it should be worded to cover all involved rather than pointing out special interest groups." Is this definition of sexual orientation not enough for you? How would you suggest it changes? Did you think that this definition only included homosexuality?

"A straight person cannot turn away a homosexual person to live in an apartment, but does that mean that a homosexual person must not turn away a straight person?" YES, it does. At least by law it does.

We agree on one thing! The law does not actually protect people. As in, there is still discrimination even after these laws are passed.

As far as the whole 'homosexuality is a sin' deal, we will never agree on that. But we don't have to. I am not going to argue with you on that point because we can both mention 10,000 different reason why it is and isn't a sin and we would get nowhere. However, I don't get why adding gender identity or sexual orientation is threatening to that belief. Or why fight to keep it out. Straight parents also raise children to believe that homosexual activity is not a sin. Actually, I would dare to say that most people who believe that homosexuality is not a sin were raised by straight parents.

If you ever go to a job interview and say your religious views (aka homosexuality is a sin) and the company does not hire you based on those. The law will protect you. Why prevent others from the same? It will not protect you against people thinking you are a tool but it also won't protect a homosexual person from people who think they are sinning either.

Sorry for this being long. I'm just curious and truly trying to understand your logic.

April 8, 2011 at 1:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Group of business leaders, churches opposed to inclusion of gender identity in Lawrence's anti-discrimination policy

I 100% agree with wanting to see the list of business that support the group. I would make sure my money never goes to support them.
Also, not actually mentioning what those 'horrible' consequences that the Manhattan law had in the community because that's what the meeting is about surely makes it seem like they don't have any valid points... If they think that what they have to say is actually valid and important then why not share it with the rest of us? Could it be because they only reason behind their meeting is that they think that being LGBT is icky?
In fact, I would like to go to their next meeting because I just can't imagine what kind of person would stand for this.

April 6, 2011 at 12:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous