Comment history

Brownback: N.J. marriage ruling deepens "constitutional crisis"

kansanbyheritage: "Some things change and some things don't. Marriage is one that doesn't."

Check your facts. Polygamy, incest, subjugation of women and property rights, bans on interracial marriage. It's all there in the history of marriage. Not so much now. Marriage evolves. Deal with it.

October 26, 2006 at 3:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

State court will decide legality of smoking ban

For once I wish the people opposed to this ban would state a legitmate, rational argument why it is unsound. If you can't put forth a reasonable and APPLICABLE argument to support your position, then walk away, please.

The closest you seem to come is the argument that government ought not regulate private activity. Unfortunately for you, you picked the wrong country to live in, because our Constitution has been interpreted to allow regulations and restrictions on almost everything.

When you start resorting to arguments about pot and perfume and BBQ grills, I truly can't understand how you don't realize how rediculous you are.

August 29, 2006 at 3:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

State court will decide legality of smoking ban

belle says: "It's not about having to walk outside to smoke. It's about the government mandating stuff that they shouldn't. It should be up to the business owner, just as it is up to the business owner to decide if they want a liquor license or not."

So, belle, I assume that you are opposed to other public health and safety regulations, right?. Should it be up to the business owner to decide if their restaurant meets the health code, or has adequate fire exits? Why should government be forcing business to maintain a standard of cleanliness or food preparation? Why should exits have to be clearly marked? Why should they have to send the cook home if he has hepatitis? Should we all just vote with our dollars?

August 29, 2006 at 1:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Satellite lot may ease parking space crunch

I drove and parked in the yellow lots for 3 years, 5 days a week, spring, summer, and fall, and at all times of the day. Sometimes I parked by Robinson and sometimes I parked by the stadium. I found a spot 100% of the time. Was it the most convenient spot? Not always, but it was always a legal place to leave my car. Parking problem? Not in my book. I now attend Washburn in Topeka. Even though the parking there is completely free, flat, and abundantly available, people still complain. Which leads me to believe that people at universities will complain about anything. For this reason, KU should stop trying to "fix" the parking "problem." Instead, take that money and try to get all the brain cancer germs out of Wescoe.

July 26, 2006 at 1:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ban could snuff smoking statewide

When are you anti-ban people going to start bringing lawsuits to stop the "nanny state" from regulating health and safety codes. Why does the state have to require restaurants to prepare food in minimally sanitary conditions when we could simply just choose to patronize the places where the kitchens are clean while letting the others just fade away.

After all, consumer dollars are the only reguations we need, right?

June 28, 2006 at 6:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Nuisance house procedures drive code enforcement home

Some of you "real" Lawrence residents need "Don't hassle me, I'm local. And an a$$hole." shirts. Get over it. You don't own the town. If I want to live there for 8 months, 8 years, or 80 years, I have every right.

And those of you with knotted panties because this ordinance is too "subjective," well, get over it. 99% of the law is subjective. If a police car was in the neighborhood, they could tell you to shut it without a call from a neighbor. So what's the big deal about having a named neighbor call?

And for those of you having loud parties, shut up.

June 26, 2006 at 7:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Day care center waiting list could hamper faculty recruitment at KU

Yeah. Kick all the faculty and staff kids out of Hilltop. Because it should only benefit students. And how could attracting good faculty and staff possibly ever benefit students?

June 14, 2006 at 7:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Smoking ban upheld

Am I to assume that those of you who are against the smoking ban are also against health code regulations? Like, if I own a restaurant, it's MY business, and I can run it as I see fit. If I want to blow my nose on a hamburger bun and then serve it to you, you can either eat it or go down the street to the next business that doesn't blow their nose in the baked goods. My kitchen doesn't have to be clean. I don't have to keep my meat in the cooler. Wash my hands after using the bathroom? Not if I don't want. People can take it or leave it. And what about fire codes? Why do business owners need emergency exits? Why can't we block the isle? This is an economic democracy after all. Why not let the customers vote with their dollars?

I don't see a lot of business owners suing to get rid of the health and safety codes? So, why do they allow the health inspectors in, and let the fire inspector in, but pitch a hissy when the smoking ban comes up?

It's really nice to throw around words like "freedom" and "liberty" and all that. But the truth is, the Constitution really only protects our fundamental rights. Those are the only things that are going to invoke the higher levels of scrutiny by a court. Any other infringement need only be reasonable in its goals and acheived through rationale means. The goal: lower health care costs attributed to first and second-hand smoke. Seems reasonable to me. The means: ban smoking indoors. That's about as rationale as it gets.

It's a no-brainer folks. Of course, that may just be the problem.

June 6, 2006 at 9:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It's law - concealed carry upheld in House

"I must be a little slow today, but explain to me how this is an answer to my question. robinrander said "And concealed-carry in Kansas? Just the tip of the ice berg." I wanted to know what the ice berg looked like that concealed-carry tipped."

I meant it's just another example of the Kansas legislature passing laws and wasting time on issues that a majority of people (should they actually employ their common sense) would not support or do not think are pressing. I doubt this is the issue that will do it, but eventually something is going to make the moderate majority in this state take a step back in the right (left?) direction.

I don't believe all concealed-carry supporters are "crazy creationist gun-toting anti-choice anti-gay bigots" (at least not openly anyways) but those are the people who are running this state's legislature and majority party. For those of you who support this law and don't fall into that group of people, be careful, because they're going to ruin it for you.

Carry your guns, if it makes you feel better about yourselves. It's not likely to make a difference (until a group of kids come up to you and ask you for $5, but that's neither here nor there). I support the Second Amendment. I don't support this law. But my comments above were really directed at my view of the bigger picture. Which, sadly, is a view not many Kansans like to look at.

March 23, 2006 at 5:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It's law - concealed carry upheld in House

Full? Maybe not. But they do tend to run the country at most levels of government.

And concealed-carry in Kansas? Just the tip of the ice berg.

March 23, 2006 at 2:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )