Advertisement

jhwkdoc1964 (John Graham)

Follow

Comment history

Democrats best at tapping rich for political cash

Democrats have their dark money as well.

December 24, 2014 at 11:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: States try to constrain federal power

There are a majority of states that did not create their own marketplace. Some of those states also happen to be typically thought of as Democratic Party strongholds. So no it is not just Republican states as you want to claim.

December 22, 2014 at 5:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: States try to constrain federal power

The writers of the bill included a penalty for those individuals that failed to purchase insurance. The writers of the bill included penalties for businesses that failed to provide insurance for employees. So why is it hard to believe that the writers included a penalty for states that didn't have their own exchange? The fact that the majority of states (including some states that are typically considered Democratic Party strongholds) chose not to create their own marketplace suggests the writers anticipated this probability thus they included the phrasing regarding subsidies in an attempt to force those states into creating their own state marketplace. The fact that those voting for the bill didn't appreciate this aspect (probably because they didn't read it) shouldn't now allow them to interpret the wording in their favor when the wording is quite clear as written.

December 21, 2014 at 9:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Wrong repair

What is unfortunate is this project was crammed down the taxpayers throat by the city commission. Only now does the commission appear to care about what they really paid for. Way too little, way too late. The fact that some may be happy being taken to the cleaners in this boondoggle of a project doesn't mean that all of us are too blinded by the shiny bauble to notice what really went on.

December 21, 2014 at 7:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Wrong repair

Well Chuck, whoever should have been doing the inspecting work, failed miserably. If you want to blame the architect or structural engineer so be it. Whoever it was that failed to do their job should be looking for a new job.

December 21, 2014 at 7:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Wrong repair

Well then by your reasoning there would be no need for a city inspector, as you are claiming that a major concrete pour of an entire level of the structure isn't worthy of the city inspector's time. By your reasoning then the architect or structural engineer could inspect the foundation. Why in the hell are taxpayers paying for inspectors if a major concrete pour on the largest project going on at the time isn't worth their attention? Maybe that's why things weren't done correctly. The simple fact is someone failed their duty mightily. That person should lose their job.

December 21, 2014 at 7:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Wrong repair

"Its not the City Inspectors responsibility to check these cracks but rather the Architect or his Structural Engineer." That may well be true after the fact, but isn't it the city inspector's job to be sure the concrete is poured according to the specs to begin with? The inspector failed in his duties.

December 20, 2014 at 4:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Your Turn: Students defend information request

So in summary this is a case involving a public institution and release of emails. The group wanting the emails state they have a legal right to the emails (which appears correct). The person whose emails are desired is against the release and doesn't apparently wish to discuss the content of his business arrangement. The professor's supporters point out there is no specific claim of wrongdoing or any evidence of any wrongdoing. The group wanting the emails state there doesn't have to be a claim of wrongdoing or evidence of wrongdoing for them to legally have a right to the emails (again appears correct). The professor's supporters claim a ideological witch hunt. The group wanting the emails and the group's supporters deny claim. Sounds similar to another recent case involving the IRS and emails. There were some differences such as in the second case there was actual data that at least suggested possible wrongdoing as the basis for the request. Since a public institution, suggestion of wrongdoing not necessary to review emails on public computer system. In this case the person in question refused to answer questions before congress. If no wrongdoing why refuse to answer questions? While a legal right it does make one wonder if there is something going on (remember some of you claimed since the professor doesn't want his emails released that suggests something may be going on). The liberals claim a ideological witch hunt which is denied by the republicans wanting the emails. The biggest difference is the fortuitous accidental loss of all the IRS emails. The liberals state that is the end of the situation. Maybe the professor and KU should have a similar fortuitous accidental loss of all emails. That would be the end of this request and situation. James, claim false equivalency or ty quoque or whatever you want. The similarities are striking. The liberals are guilty of what they charged the conservatives, and vice versa. The only difference so far is the liberals had the the luck of a fortuitous accident that destroyed the desired data which the conservatives in this case haven't had (yet). so now the shoe is on the other foot. People should at least be consistent. If you liberals liked how the IRS issue played out then you should be happy if the professor's emails just disappear. If you conservatives thought they had a legal right to the IRS emails then you should also be happy for the professor to turn over his emails (unless they just happen to first accidently disappear due to a computer glitch).

December 20, 2014 at 8:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Your Turn: Students defend information request

Just remember that James, for when a conservative led witch hunt is out to get a liberal professor I expect you to be front and center pointing out their legal right to do so while ignoring the ideology involved.

December 20, 2014 at 5:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Your Turn: Students defend information request

You state, "The point is that this issue, Koch/KU, has nothing to do with ideology." If the law says you are entitled to the records so be it, but don't think for a minute you are convincing anyone that this has nothing to do about political ideology. This is all about a political ideology that you don't like.

December 20, 2014 at 5:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous