Comment history


This is a wonderful family. Doug and Amy are incredibly hard-working, generous people who would give you the shirt of their back. They've given immensely back to the community. They are two great people to work for and to learn from. You should see their place!

April 29, 2011 at 7:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Education attack

Nicely done. You're only off by a few magnitudes.

You missed the point of the letter.

You're a perfect example of Brownback's example education--little reading comprehension and no basic math skills.

March 17, 2011 at 7:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas Republicans push for rejection of federal health reform law

So are some of their environmental regulations, but it typically trumps state laws that contradict federal laws. More stringent regulations don't necessarily contradict federal law.

February 10, 2011 at 4:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GOP may push for repeal of state smoking ban

awfully above. I'm not going to argue with you anymore. Consider it an admission of your superior ability to detect this grand scheme.

December 20, 2010 at 3:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GOP may push for repeal of state smoking ban

Oh come on, there's more to the story than he "WON'T lie", and you know it. If they fired him because he won't lie, he would have a awful strong case against the school.

December 20, 2010 at 3:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Group exaggerates evil of political labels


December 20, 2010 at 3:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GOP may push for repeal of state smoking ban

"I have posted this info before, but it apparently fell on deaf ears since most people want to believe any lies or distortions that scientists and other authority mongers come up with"

Nobody wants to believe lies--well, perhaps some do, but most don't. To be honest, most people will struggle with the idea that being exposed to second-hand smoke causes absolutely no effect on a person's body, as you would suggest. I don't think it's hard to grasp that exposure to second-hand smoke is more harmful than no exposure to second-hand smoke. And, while all studies contain error, there's strong correlation to suggest second-hand smoke adversely affects one's health, regardless of the 90% confidence level. It's almost common sense.

You also lose me when you suggest that scientists are paid to lie. There's no grant funding tied to lying, not even especially in Lawrence (which sounds emotional in nature) more than anywhere else, as you've said below. Also, in order for one to believe you, you need to provide a motivation for those scientists to lie. Grant money isn't tied directly to the result of the study, rather being tied to the ability and past history of a scientist to produce well-founded, well-researched results.

Many of your other arguments are just rants. For example, reference your comment about the ACS (#8) below. I'm not sure what that has to do with the merit of a smoking ban, which leads me to answer your question as to why people choose not to listen to you--you're not sticking to the argument.

Furthermore, nobody has advocated to complete ban of tobacco products (again off topic), but rather that SMOKE from tobacco products in public places shall be restricted.

December 20, 2010 at 3:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GOP may push for repeal of state smoking ban

That's perfectly reasonable, yes. But leaping to the conclusion that businesses will fail as a direct result of a smoking ban is a far cry from this observation.

December 20, 2010 at 2:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GOP may push for repeal of state smoking ban

"Posing this as a liberal vs. conservative or tobacco vs. social conservative misses the point of Brenda's loony proposal. This is to make a governmental buck off of an addiction. Brenda's final solution is just crass."

You're very much correct. Quite a few localities already have bans in place. I'd be curious to know, if it were between her proposal and the existing ban, what an establishment would prefer. Her proposal will fail, and as a result, the ban won't likely be repealed.

December 20, 2010 at 12:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )