Comment history

Letter: Hate speech

Well, if you don't think it was a death threat but only saying something which someone else didn't like to hear, then I guess more power to you.

October 9, 2013 at 7:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Felony required?

Ron, so you're saying all we need is one state to make it legal for relatives to marry and it would be ok?

"But as far as I know, there are no FLDS members in Kansas, so it's a moot point anyway. "

And as far as I know, it is illegal for those of the same sex to marry in Kansas. Sodomy used to be illegal in all states. It still is in most states. But someone seems to think that promotion of illegal activities and making them legal is worthwhile. So, according to them, just because something is illegal is no reason not to promote it.

Have you come up with a valid reason why wouldn't the same reasons argued for promoting sodomy shouldn't apply to trans / bi / poly? What reason do you have to restrict "what goes on in the privacy of one's bedroom?"

October 9, 2013 at 7:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Felony required?

"Hopefully, those reasons will never again apply."

And what was the reasons for 2 people of the same sex to think they can get "married"?

And why wouldn't the same reasons apply to trans / bi / poly? Can you give a valid reason? What reason do you have to restrict "what goes on in the privacy of one's bedroom?"

If perverted sex is condoned for one deviant group, why not all groups?

"Plural marriage is still commonly practiced in many Middle Eastern countries. But, they have a totally different set of mores and their culture is wildly different than ours."

And we did have a different set of culture, but it seems to be going down a slippery slope. You guys said in the past it is a slippery slope fallacy, but now I hear in California they are sliding further down into having no limit on multiple "parents". It's coming. No fallacy found.

October 8, 2013 at 4:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Felony required?

Not sure how it would change your tax amount. Maybe you could explain it?

But this does bring up an issue. What about those who have more than one spouse? How would they file as married? There's only one other line. If they only list one spouse, wouldn't they be committing tax fraud? And if they sign, wouldn't they be committing perjury as well?

October 8, 2013 at 9:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Hate speech


Do you consider anyone who disagrees with you making hate speech to you? No such thing as hate speech. Or all speech is hate speech. I disagree with you. Therefore, your speech is hate speech.

Now if you feel a death threat has been made to you by Guth, then that is another thing. But nothing to do with hate speech.

October 8, 2013 at 8:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas officials on new health exchange: Be patient

"up to"?

Sounds more like an advertiser/marketing claim.

Get "up to" $15,000 for your trade-in! You "could" even make money off the deal!
But sorry, you only qualify for 50 cents.

October 4, 2013 at 9:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Future at stake

And don't forget President Obama already made several exceptions to the law. How we govern ourselves IS at stake.

October 4, 2013 at 8:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Government should govern

So the point being, why do you think I should pay for your eyeglasses? Or oil changes or gasoline? I know dental is optional. How about optometry, are eyeglasses even relevant to the discussion?

October 4, 2013 at 8:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Government should govern

It's so sad you guys feel that you've been given a bad body. You sound as hopeless as those who say, I was born in debt, I'll die in debt. I'm sure you inherited your diabetes from your family. Just not genetically. It's been called hoof-to-mouth disease. Just because your family has a long history of poor choices, doesn't mean you have to continue them. You're same as saying that car insurance should pay for everyone's gas whether they choose to drive a gas hog or not.

Do you know why it's called acquired diabetes? Because it is acquired! Acquired through poor eating and living habits. And if someone is going to bring Jesus into it, didn't He say go and sin no more after relieving people's suffering? He didn't effectively give them a pack of cigarettes and tell them that now they've been healed, to go and continue enjoying them.

But maybe you're asking about what do we do with those who refuse to change. Well, Jesus never coerced anyone. It was their free choice and not someone else making it for them. I may be wrong, but won't smokers pay more for their health insurance? Why? Answer that and you've answered why people who intentionally keep making poor choices shouldn't be subsidized by healthy people. You need to quit blaming your genetics, your body, or someone else, and stop looking for a magic pill or potion. It's your own choices that got you where you are. But you can also choose to better your health, too. Have you watched Curing Diabetes in 30 days or one of many others? Watch that and then maybe you can come back and discuss it. Start changing your life today, lest a worse thing come to you.

October 3, 2013 at 4:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What does the Affordable Care Act mean for you?

So they are costing the rest of us. Is that fair? Do you suggest they need an "End of Life Plan"?

Since you seem to be about FORCE, it won't surprise me. Increase the income, decrease the expenses, huh?

October 2, 2013 at 4:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )