Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- charleskhyter on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Politico on Moore has had enough of House
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
Open thread
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted June 15, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
160 Comments
Sebelius makes appointments to Kansas Board of Regentshttp://www.kansas.com/news/local/story/97248.htmlhttp://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jun/14/sebelius_makes_appointments_kansas_board_regents/
Quick political money profile of new Sebelius appointees:
Jarold Boettcher, Beloit, Republican: $500 to Sebelius 9/8/2006
Jill Docking, Wichita, Democrat, $250 to Sebelius 10/26/2001 BUT husband Tom Docking gave to Sebelius big time: $2000 on 9/1/2006, $650 on 5/19/2005, $2000 on 12/27/1999, $2000 on 9/4/2002, $1000 on 5/22/2003
Richard Hedges, Fort Scott, Republican: only gave $150 to Democrat Shirley Palmer in 2006
Gary Sherrer, Overland Park. Republican (former Lt. Gov): Gave $250 to Democrat Dan Glickman in 1994. Favored bistate tax to send Kansas tax dollars to Missouri with little oversight. No one has explained the connection between Sherrer and his former Gold Bank boss, Mike Gullion, who was fined $3.5 million by the SEC for “misappropriation of corporate funds.” Sherrer was also connect to KTRM, which pledged to disempower far right, http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/08/gop_group_pledges_disempower_far_right/
William Thornton, Atchison, Democrat. Gave $100 to Sebelius on 9/23/2005.
Donna Lee Shank, Liberal (city), Republican. Donna’s contributions to Sebelius: $200 3/27/2002, $200 5/6/2002, $200 6/4/2002, $200 7/3/2002, $1000 3/2/2005, $1000 8/1/2006
So does this article from two years ago still apply?Donor rolls often hold clues on regent picks: Board members usually have supported governor who names them, but job not considered ‘reward’http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/jul/25/donor_rolls_often_hold_clues_regent_picks/LJWorld, 7/25/2005
All together now, they’ve got nothing.Justice Dept. probing Gonzales meeting with aide By JoAnne AllenFri Jun 15, 1:24 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Justice Department is investigating U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s meeting with a former top aide about the controversial firing of federal prosecutors last year, according to a letter released on Thursday by the Senate Judiciary committee.
ADVERTISEMENT
In testimony before the House Judiciary committee, the former aide, Monica Goodling, said Gonzales told her about his recollections of the dismissals in March, shortly before she resigned.
Gonzales, in earlier testimony before the committee, said he had not gone back to talk to staff involved in the firings “in order to protect the integrity” of the investigations.
Senate Judiciary committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), the panel’s senior Republican, last week asked Justice Department investigators whether an internal probe includes the meeting Goodling testified about.
The Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) confirmed in a letter to the Senate panel that their joint investigation “does include this matter.”
A Justice Department spokesman could not be immediately reached for comment.
President George W. Bush and Gonzales say the firing of nine of the 93 U.S. attorneys, all Bush appointees, was justified though mishandled.
Critics have questioned whether partisan politics played an improper role in the dismissal plans, which originated at the White House. One of the fired prosecutors was replaced by a former aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove.
The Justice Department’s internal investigation was already looking into whether Goodling brought political questions into the hiring process for career positions, such as assistant U.S. attorneys. That would violate federal law.
Leahy said he hoped the White House would not shut down the Justice Department investigation.
“This internal investigation is an important step in getting to the truth behind this matter, and they should be allowed to do their jobs without interference from this administration,” Leahy said in a statement.
Goodling, who served as a senior counsel to Gonzales, testified last month after receiving immunity from prosecution and told Congress that political considerations were often involved in hiring.
Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday issued subpoenas to former White House counsel Harriet Miers and political director Sara Taylor to testify in the ongoing inquiry into the dismissals of federal prosecutors.
Here’s a thought; start charging Iraq for our services. Starting July 1st, bill the Iraqi gov’t for every penny of our cost ‚Äì mission cost, logistics, support, transportation, every penny it costs us to be there, forward that cost to the Iraqi gov’t. Plus a 15% gratuity. Make the checks payable to China.
Bet they don’t keep us around too long. Bet they start policing their own. Bet the oil production gets on line.
Plus we start paying down our debt to China.
Everybody wins :-)
War restitution cost for Iraq would be similar to war restitution cost for Germany. They would go after us big time.
How much money have we spent on them so far? How many buildings have we built for them only to have them blown up? How many times have we gotten the power and water back on only to have them blow that up too?
I think our bill has been paid.
kind of like building a house in a bog.
Building a log cabin in a forest fire?
I think bush is holding off on the Libby pardon, until he sees if he’s going to have to issue one for gonzo and others in his administration.
Quite the trading partner.China source of 80 percent of suspected fakes seized Fri Jun 15, 1:27 AM ET
BEIJING (Reuters) – China is the source of about 80 percent of shipments of suspected fake goods seized by U.S. Customs last year, a U.S. Customs official said on Friday.
ADVERTISEMENTThe extent of pirated goods made in China, from drugs and designer bags to golf clubs and DVDs, has become a major source of friction between Beijing and Washington, prompting the United States to lodge two intellectual property rights (IPR) cases against China at the World Trade Organization this year.
W. Ralph Basham, Commissioner for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said he hoped a new agreement with China to provide information on seizures would help curb rampant violations.
“We’ve got to start dealing with the source of the problem. We can’t expect to rely on interdiction to be our tool in order to stop these IPR violations,” Basham told reporters.
“So we’ve got to go with a strategy that is dealing with where the source is and who is manufacturing — who’s importing it, who’s exporting it, and then start to come down on these companies, and start to make these penalties significant,” he said.
In 2006 alone, the United States seized more than 14,700 shipments that violated intellectual property laws, about 80 percent of which originated in China, Basham said.
The agreement signed last month between Basham and Mu Xinsheng, China’s Minister of Customs, requires each side to provide information to the other about the identity of the suspected shipper or exporter.
Once the entity is identified, China would then be committed to investigating.
“They will then provide us back information as to what enforcement actions they have either taken or anticipate taking,” Basham said.
The aim was to formalize a process through which each responds to the other with actual results of investigations, rather than simply sharing information, he said.
“Many times when we’ve provided information, we didn’t get results,” Basham said. “What happened to it?”
http://www.kansas.com/203/story/97002.html‚”Military shouldn’t give up on love bombI’m all for new weapons that give us an edge over our growing list of enemies abroad, but this might go too far: The U.S. Air Force in 1994 reportedly considered a plan to develop a bomb that would turn enemy soldiers gay.I swear I’m not making this up.According to military documents recently obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the Pentagon actually considered developing weapons systems that even Liberace might have embraced.”One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior,” wrote one researcher.I guess in this fantasy scenario, after our side dropped the G-bomb, enemy soldiers would throw down their weapons and make goo-goo eyes at one another. Maybe link arms and start singing show tunes.And America would celebrate by declaring G-Day?I don’t know. Help me out here. This is just bizarre.Of course, the most obvious problem with this proposal is that there’s no known chemical that can turn someone’s sexual orientation on or off, like a light switch.That idea seems to go against the prevailing scientific evidence, which suggests that gayness or straightness is something genetically hardwired at an early age, or else triggered by prolonged exposure to the sermons of Fred Phelps.That’s probably why this weapon never made it past the conceptual stage.”The idea that you could submit someone to some aerosol spray and change their sexual behavior is ludicrous,” scoffed one expert this week.Apparently the Pentagon had a similarly bad pheromonal response — it never funded the idea.Military strategists might have had some other second thoughts.What if the wind changed, and blew the clouds of gay gas back on our troops?Imagine the confusion.Would U.S. soldiers who were gay become straight?I’m not sure the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy would cover the fallout, or coming out, or whatever you want to call it.”
A first shifter pointed this out to me in this mornings Eagle, saying you are not going to believe this! He was right of course, I agree with Randy, just what were they hoping to accomplish? Why would this have even been a first thought? What the enemy yells “Bitch” before he fires his weapon? Instead of shooting at you he would want to slap you?
I have known some flaming gays, uh-un don’t want them mad at me! You think hell has no fury like a woman scorn! Try getting on the bad side of a homo-sexual cross dresser!
“private, what do you find when you checked out that bunker?” “Oh Sergeant it was terrible, bodies everywhere and they were having unprotected SEX!”.
I suspect that Rumsfield had his hand in this, it make as much sense as the Iraq war! But if they could have followed through, than the Iraqis troop would not have just been expected to greet us with flowers, but kisses too! I through… Later.
These are the people that deserve WTO membership?Is it any wonder we can’t compete with them?
China brickwork slave children may number 1,000 Fri Jun 15, 4:28 AM ET
BEIJING (Reuters) – As many as 1,000 children may have been sold into slave labor in central China, enduring maiming and brutality in primitive brick kilns, state media said on Friday amid an expanding scandal about official neglect.
ADVERTISEMENT
The owners ran the prison-like kilns in Shanxi and Henan provinces with fierce dogs and thugs who beat the children at will, state television said. One accidentally killed a child with a shovel and buried the body at night, it said.
The workers, mostly young males, some of whom were kidnapped from around the country, were shown on television sleeping on bricks inside the brickworks with doors sealed from outside with wire and windows barred to prevent their escape.
Some had horrific, festering wounds on their black feet and around their waist, presumably from burns from the kiln.
“We wanted to run but we couldn’t,” one disheveled worker was quoted as saying. “I tried once and was beaten.”
An army of 35,000 police in central China had so far rescued 468 people after checking 7,500 kilns, Xinhua news agency said.
As many as 120 suspects had been arrested.
“Our conservative estimate is that at least 1,000 minors from Henan have been trapped and cheated into back-breaking work in these Shanxi brick kilns,” a reporter from Henan said on the current affairs program Oriental Horizon.
The program showed workers who had recently been rescued — ragged, emaciated and mute and some bearing injuries.
Xinhu said Yang Aizhi, a 46-year-old mother, was one of the people who alerted the public to the scandal.
Her 16-year-old son went missing on March 8 and she heard that he might have been kidnapped and forced to work at a kiln.
SCHOOL UNIFORMS
Yang went to more than 100 kilns in Shanxi and discovered that “most were forcing children to do hard labor,” she was quoted as saying. Some children were still wearing their school uniforms.
When the children were too tired to push carts, they were whipped, Yang was quoted as saying.
Despite the high-profile rescue effort, criticism is rising of official indifference to the poor farming families.
Local media reports and Web sites have cited what they have said is a petition from fathers of boys kidnapped from Henan. They complained that Shanxi police were unwilling to help Henan authorities to find and rescue the children.
“We are too weak and our children face constant threats to their life. We can only beg the government,” said a copy of the document.
The China Youth Daily noted that local officials had apologized for failing to rescue the workers.
“But we have even more reason to ask why was it only after the case was widely reported by the media and shocked the central leadership that the local government then thought to apologize to these poor rural workers,” it said.
“The local officials, did they really not know about the situation or did they choose to look the other way?” the China News Service asked.
The People’s Daily, mouthpiece of the Communist Party, said tacit approval or even collusion from poorly funded local governments was to blame.
“At present, some grassroots governments are grappling with huge debts, so they are sluggish in administration and even gain incomes illegally, causing instability in rural areas,” it said.
And America gives them Most Favored Nation status. Time to rethink that move?
Wow, Meadowlark, can you bring a little more conspiracy theory to the table? Someone donated a whole $100 to Sebelius FIVE years ago so that makes their appointment suspect? Someone else donated NOT to Sebelius but to a democratic candidate for Senate so that makes them suspicious? So you are saying that the $50 I donated to Relay for Life could come back to bite me if I ever decided to run in the policital arena? Get real.
I have noticed lately that lots of women with nasty, ugly feet are wearing open toed shoes! Listen up ladies, it is not attractive, not at all, so cut it out!!!!!
Guess what, SGT, there are plenty of men out there with nasty feet wearing sandals too – so why should just the women have to stop wearing them?
Anon,
I posed a question to Meadowlark on yesterday’s Tiller thread, asking him why he’s showing up on campaign expenditure reports for state representatives. I’ll paste part of it here:
=======”Oh, and speaking of hiring liars – exactly what did Brenda Landwehr hire you to do for her campaign last year? Your programming specialty seems to be graphics imaging – you know, just like the software used in Sedgwick County’s voting machines. You don’t live in Sedgwick County; you live three hours away in Johnson County. Yet a Sedgwick County state representative paid you $1000 for “data work.” Share with us what kind of “data work” you were doing. Be honest (for a change).”========
If he wants to play conspiracy games, we can certainly play ;)
This is for parkay, the transfat substitute for the real thing…
“Why I changed my vote” Mass. Senator on same sex marriage.In January at the end of the last legislative session, Representative Gale Candaras, a Democrat from Wilbraham, voted in favor of a constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage.
Candaras returned to the Legislature as a senator and changed her position, voting today against the same-sex marriage ban.
. . .
For me, what all this comes down to is this: Same gendered couples are taxpaying, law-abiding citizens, who are important community contributors, well-loved and well-respected by their families, friends, neighbors and employers. They deserve and are entitled to the same legal protections enjoyed by all others citizens of our state.. . .
I also want to address directly one of the more contentious issues in this debate: Same gender couples have been adopting children and building families here in the Commonwealth for about twenty years. In many instances, same gendered couples have adopted children with severe challenges, children no one else wanted, and they have worked miracles with them. These children would have lived lives of despair without these families.
This underscores how we cannot afford to marginalize any of our people; make anyone second-class citizens. We are all precious resources to each other, and to generations yet to come.
We have had a full and fair public discussion and debate, and today we must settle this matter so we can move on to other issues of equal and, perhaps, even greater import to our state.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that the finality of judgments is the concession we make to the shortness of life.
I have been most impressed by the number of individuals who have called me and asked me to change my vote because they have changed their minds. One grandmother told me she had changed her mind and wanted me to change my vote in case one of her grandchildren grew up to be gay or lesbian. She did not want any of her grandchildren to be denied the right to marry the person they love.
This is exactly the legacy we will leave to generations beyond us, and the example we can set for the nation and, I daresay the world, which is certainly paying attention to what we do and say here today.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_n...
Click and read the rest.
Farmgrrl,
Your post only underscores the importance of being out and being visible. If legislators don’t know us for who they are, all they’ll know is what scum the likes of “Parkay” tell them. Once lawmakers understand we’re their neighbors, co-workers, doctors, lawyers, bricklayers, whatever, the propaganda from the radicons falls flat.
The people of Mass. were supposed to have the opportunity to have a referendum over the gay marriage thing. As usual, they were trumped by the elites, just like on immigration and every other damned thing. “Democracy” is a fraud!
Agreed Tom. Too bad some very public gay folks are ashamed to be honest. I can think of a few folks who could REALLY help if they just were honest and came out.
And the funny thing? If you looked up “lesbian” in the dictionary, their picture would be beside it. Some of the most closeted folks are only in the closet to themselves. OTHERS can see it a mile away.
I think there is a special place in hell for gay folks who continue to feed at the public or political barn and benefit from lying, while those of us who are honest take the rap for them.
Heheheh. I guess that little rant should prove that “gays” are just like everyone else. We have our sheros and heros…
… and we have our selfish cowardly assholes too!
Slaughter,
It only would have taken _ONE_QUARTER_ of the People of Massachusetts’ _ELECTED_ state representatives to force the issue onto a statewide ballot. They couldn’t even get that much.
“The people of Mass. were supposed to have the opportunity to have a referendum over the gay marriage thing.”
Supposed to? Says who?
Funny, but sgt nutcase illustrates the hypocrisy of the christian taliban.
A vote on gay marriage is something that is “supposed to” happen.
But a vote on gaming? Oh HELL NO! They worked day and night to keep THAT off the ballot. So people could NOT vote on it.
Hypocrisy, thy name is…
… and we have our selfish cowardly assholes too!Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | June 15, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Yeah. And if I was the kind of guy who outed closeted public officials…but dammit, I don’t & won’t.
::sigh::
I am an ATHEIST and I depsise religious people, jews, christians, muslims, etc. I think that religion should be outlawed.
This is about our fraudulent system, nothing more. The people were PROMISED a plebiscite and the elites, as usual reneged.
“They couldn’t even get that much.”
Even with MITT ROMNEY, you know, Mr. Flip-Flop, making it the centerpiece of his last year of sitting in the gov’s chair.
No wonder the American Revolution started in New England. That is apparantly where courage and freedom and REAL allegiance to equal justice thrive.
If America had first been settled in kansas, the “patriots” would never have fired a shot. They’d be too busy saying “yes master” and consulting terry fox to EVER throw off the chains of tyranny.
Hell, even now, you have the cons LONGING for their chains…
“The people were PROMISED a plebiscite”
Please post a link to who promised that and when.
Slaughter,
The people of Massachusetts were promised due process. They’ve even had an election cycle between the original ruling on marriage and this week’s legislative vote. I know for a fact that the marriage issue was a _huge_ campaign issue in almost every competitive race in Mass. The people had an opportunity to vote in anti-marriage legislators, and didn’t; in fact, they voted in _more_ pro-marriage equality legislators than had been in office previously!
So put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.
And ya know Tom, it isnt JUST gay folks who need to kick down the closet door.
It reminds me of a meeting of the state committee at Washington days in 2004 when the gay caucus made a presentation and a plea for democrats to be democrats and not republican lite.
A VERY well known and well respected woman, a democratic icon, came up to me after the presentation, and said “I cant tell anyone this, but both my kids are gay. Thanks for doing what you are doing.”Now WTF does THAT mean? That gays are so hated by upper crust democrats that even SHE couldnt admit that her kids were gay?
Of course, it didnt stop her from getting her picture taken with sebelius, the homophobe in chief. With her minions Hensley and McKinney.
Yeah. A LOT of folks need to realize a closet is too small a space for an adult human being.
Queers do not bother me and I could care less if they marry. Most queers are atheists and that’s good. It is about the process, broken promises and the utter disdain that the elites have for the people!
So, it seems that gays, like other minority groups only like “democracy” when it works to their benefit. How pathetic!!!
“Most queers are atheists and that’s good.”
More talking out yer ass. Please post proof of THAT.
“It is about the process, broken promises and the utter disdain that the elites have for the people!”
Once again, do you have proof of those “broken promises”? Please post who made thos promises and when.
If you are talking about the state’s flip flopper in chief, the mitt man, if he promised the folks in mass a vote, that should illustrate how often HE talks out his ass.
mitt broke a “promise”? Say it isnt so…
“only like “democracy” when it works to their benefit.”
Where the hell did anyone say THAT?
Last I checked, electing reps and having the legislature govern WAS democracy.
I think sgt shultz here is just a wingnut looking for a little fun…
Still waiting on your proof of “promises” made…
“Queers”?
How nice.
Did you bother to read my post about the process in Massachusetts? It’s in their Constitution; their legislature had a vote three years ago, had an election, voted out some anti’s, and had another vote this week. That’s their democratically enacted process, they followed it, and gay and lesbian couples won.
Deal with it.
Still waiting on your proof that most gays are athiests….
There is nothing FUN about a fraudulent political system that consistently disregards the will of the people!
wingnut??????????????/
Bush Family Evil Empire: Scandal Du Jour
GW and Brother Jeb throw tens of thousands off voter rolls in Florida to ensure victory in 2000
*****
Florida’s flawed “voter-cleansing” program
Secretary of State Katherine Harris hired a firm to vet the rolls for felons, but that may have wrongly kept thousands, particularly blacks, from casting ballots.
- – - – - – - – - – - -By Gregory Palast
Dec. 4, 2000 | If Vice President Al Gore is wondering where his Florida votes went, rather than sift through a pile of chad, he might want to look at a “scrub list” of 173,000 names targeted to be knocked off the Florida voter registry by a division of the office of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. A close examination suggests thousands of voters may have lost their right to vote based on a flaw-ridden list that included purported “felons” provided by a private firm with tight Republican ties.
Early in the year, the company, ChoicePoint, gave Florida officials a list with the names of 8,000 ex-felons to “scrub” from their list of voters. But it turns out none on the list were guilty of felonies, only misdemeanors. The company acknowledged the error, and blamed it on the original source of the list — the state of Texas.
Florida officials moved to put those falsely accused by Texas back on voter rolls before the election. Nevertheless, the large number of errors uncovered in individual counties suggests that thousands of eligible voters may have been turned away at the polls.
Florida is the only state that pays a private company that promises to “cleanse” voter rolls.The state signed in 1998 a $4 million contract with DBT Online, since merged into ChoicePoint, of Atlanta. The creation of the scrub list, called the central voter file, was mandated by a 1998 state voter fraud law, which followed a tumultuous year that saw Miami’s mayor removed after voter fraud in the election, with dead people discovered to have cast ballots. The voter fraud law required all 67 counties to purge voter registries of duplicate registrations, deceased voters and felons, many of whom, but not all, are barred from voting in Florida.
In the process, however, the list invariably targets a minority population in Florida . . .
And if this unfairly singled out minorities, it unfairly handicapped Gore: In Florida, 93 percent of African-Americans voted for the vice president
Madison County’s elections supervisor, Linda Howell, had a peculiarly personal reason for distrusting the central voter file: She had received a letter saying that since she had committed a felony, she would not be allowed to vote.
Howell, who said she has never committed a felony, said the letter she received in March shook her faith in the process. “It really is a mess,” she said.
Florida is the only state in the nation to contract the first stage of removal of voting rights to a private company. And ChoicePoint has big plans. “Given the outcome of our work in Florida,” says Fagan, “and with a new president in place, we think our services will expand across the country.”
Especially if that president is named “Bush.” ChoicePoint’s board and executive roster are packed with Republican stars, including billionaire Ken Langone, a company director who was chairman of the fund-raising committee for New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s aborted run against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Langone is joined at ChoicePoint by another Giuliani associate, former New York Police Commissioner Howard Safir. And Republican power lobbyist and former congressman Vin Weber lobbies for ChoicePoint in Washington. Just before his death in 1998, Rick Rozar, president of a Choicepoint company, CDB Infotek, donated $100,000 to the Republican Party.
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html
******
A reich-wing Republican company from TEXAS purging voters in brother Jeb’s state of Florida.
No wonder, Jebbie promised that he could “deliver” Florida . . . and he did, voters be damned.
This has been your Bush Family Evil Empire: Scandal Du Jour.
Kansas…as BIGOTED as you think.
So bigoted, in fact, that they hate the governing process, not only in kansas, but in OTHER states as well….
Mitt is a turd. Period.
Do y’all think that gay marriage should be a state’s choice and not regulated by the federal government?
Farmgrrl,
I was still a Republican in 2004, so wasn’t at Washington Days that year. It wasn’t until April 6 of 2005 that I traded one brand of hypocrisy for another.
Ouch, that was really cynical.
Sol,
I think whether or not I marry my partner should be MY choice.
Thanks for asking.
“fraudulent political system that consistently disregards the will of the people!”
Uh, I thought those legislators in mass were elected to DO the will of the people!
Why didnt they vote in more ANTIS if that was what they wanted. I think their last election made CLEAR what the people of that state wanted.
And they gave it to them.
Sounds like the process works well up there. Unlike here…
There are obviously some governmental issues as it requires a State’s license. So Tom, who decides? Your state with elected officials or some appointed judges?
“Ouch, that was really cynical.”
Yeah, but ouch, that was really true….
Sometimes the straight up haters in the republic party are easier to deal with than the shape shifting snakes in the democrat party.
Like I always say, what difference does it make WHICH party we support if they both HATE us equally…
You know what’s funny?
The 43rd President of the United States–George Walker Bush–is now in Wichita and local TV is showing regular programming.
Martha Stewart and The Price is Right is more important than Worst. President. Ever.
Oh but I bet the WE is there!
To tell you the truth, I don’t care anymore. If a person wants to marry another person, then that should be it. No reason to get any further into detail, except for the age of both parties.
But shouldn’t it be a state’s issue? Shouldn’t each state be allowed to decide? Shouldn’t the people of each state be able to vote yes or no?
First, the issue goes beyond states’ boundaries…the prime issue being, will one state recognize the validity of another state’s marriage laws?
Further, I’m FOR judges deciding the issue. The judiciary has held wild-eyed legislatures in check (not just in the US, I might add) enough for me to know that violation of constitutional principles – not only constitutional principles but issues of common decency – are attempted far too often by the tyranny of the majority. yes, judges may be biased, on occasion, but generally they have been far more able to separate themselves from their personal feelings than have other branches of government.
Sol,
Elections don’t give license to the majority to oppress or restrict the rights of the minority. That’s why we _have_ constitutions, bills of rights, and judicial review of executive and legislative actions. Your question, on its face, is leading and meaningless.
Sol – you also have a federal law issue in regards to taxes etc.
FarmGrrl–
They don’t hate you equally.
Dems may be a little wimpy about standing up for gay rights, but that isn’t the same as TRYING TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION TO OUTLAW GAY MARRIAGE.
Don’t confuse the active hate and discrimination of the Republican Party with the benign neglect of the Democrats . . .
BTW, which party does Barney Frank belong to?
BFAH, great post.
Judicial activism???
Tyranny of the minority-affirmative action?-immigration?-globalism?-forced integration?
Why do all “oppressed” minorities despise states rights? This country was founded on the principle!!
Why should state ‘a’ be forced to recognize state ‘b’s law? That violates a state’s independence.
If a state votes on a law that say supports or recognizes gay marriage and the SCOTUS finds reason to find it unconstitutional, why should that wreck it for every other state? If a state is pro gay marriage and is happy with it, why should they lose that based on some appointed judges and not the will of the people from that state?
“ksfarmgrrl” –
I don’t know which Democratic “icon” you’re talking about.
But I know one and although most people close to the family know her son’s sexual orientation and she knows it wouldn’t make a whit of difference to us… he has chosen to not come out to the public. And she respects his decision.
When we’ve talked, she has been quite circumspect in protecting his public status. It’s simply no big deal and most certainly isn’t any of my business. What other people do in bed is none of my business unless I’m in bed with them.
Of course I have no idea whether your Democratic “icon” and mine are the same person. Thing is, even if they were, open advocacy of gay rights might not be an option she wishes to take due to her son’s right or wrong decision to remain closeted.
It’s a shame on society that anyone in the year 2007 should think being in the closet is preferable, but we’ve seen the mentality of gay-bashers all too often in this forum. Many are born gay; not so many have been born activists.
Uh, capn, the one that is NOT the party of Mark Foley?
Sebelius, McKinney, and Hensley, among other democrats ACTIVELY worked to support the hate amendment. Check out McKinney. And the best hensley and governor leadership could do was silence.
Check out the votes capn. More republican legislators voted AGAINST the hate amendment than democrats.
Remember, the stars might lie but the numbers never do.
TY, ksfg… :-)
Hey good to be back…always enjoy reading your posts….I have what the French call “wit of the staircase”. I can always think of something clever to say that makes a point LONG after the time I really needed it. I wish you could teach me the secret…
Capn,
Oh my…okay.
In 2005, our best and most vocal allies were the moderate Republicans (if by moderate we mean “people who respect civil and individual rights”).
Democratic House “leadership,” in the form of Dennis McKinney, Jim Ward, and Eber Phelps, voted unanimously to strip gay and lesbian couples of equal marriage rights. Furthermore, they were pressing other Democrats in the House to do the same.
Republicans like Ed O’Malley, Tim Owens, Barbara Craft, Jim Yonally and others risked losing their primaries to wingers when they stood up on the House floor and defended us. Yonally _did_ lose his next primary.
Part of Tim Owen’s speech on the House floor that day will always be burned into my memory. He knew he’d probably be targeted by the radicals in his next primary. Here’s part of what he had to say before voting against the constitutional ban:
“When I was in the Marines, my commanders taught us that sometimes all we can do is pick which hill we’re going to die on. This is the hill I’m going to stand on, because I believe this is the right thing to do.”
Slaughter,
You want to see judicial activism in action, go back and read some of the convoluted reasoning and theorizing on the rights of corporations in America…yet I’m sure you wouldn’t consider those decisions as judicial activism.
BTW, “judicial activism” has given you lots of “penumbra” rights..like the right to free association. The Bill of Rights is not a LIMIT on what our rights are, they set out the minimum rights that we have. In fact, the Bill of Rights was opposed by many since it seemed to be superfluous and might lead to the very conception that our rights are limited by those enumerated.
Monkeyhawk, I always enjoy your posts, so with all due respect…
I said this “ICON” had TWO gay children. Yours apparantly only has one. Nice to know there are TWO icons that support the closet.
Now if you want to talk about the children of elected democratic office holders, we could do that too.
OH and anyone defending kansas democrats should remember that Nancy Boyda flat LIED to us, sought our support, took our money, and then did a flip flop on the hate amendment.
I guess hypocrisy flourishes for both parties when the question of equal justice for gays is raised.
Slaughter,
Here is a link to the full text of the United States Constitution:
http://usconstitution.net/const.html
Please paste in the section that defines “state’s rights.”
Sol,
Evr hear of the “full faith” clause?
States need to respect other states’ decisions in lots of matters. They respect court decisions her in KS against felons, for example…and KS repects their judgements…just an example.
Sol – from the US Constitution:
Article. IV. – The States
Section 1 – Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
“Democratic House “leadership,” in the form of Dennis McKinney, Jim Ward, and Eber Phelps, voted unanimously to strip gay and lesbian couples of equal marriage rights. Furthermore, they were pressing other Democrats in the House to do the same.”
True dat Tom.
And what do all three have in common? A SLAVISH devotion to governor leadership. Do you think if she wanted the hate amendment stopped, THEY would have ignored her wishes.
Jesus wept. They were carrying the water for the party. That is their job. They were carrying the water for sebelius. THAT is also their job. They would NEVER cross governor “leadership”.
Three words. David Adkins. Republican.
He single handedly stopped the hate amendment in 2004. And what did the democrats say or do to stop it?
(crickets chirping)
WD, there was discussion of this on another board, and one of the military guys said that love bomb was actually LSD. I don’t think dropping acid on people with guns and crazy is a very good idea at all- if that is true.
Tom, Notice that meadowlark has quit responding since you outed his little secret? Guess he can’t stand the heat.
By the way, was talking to my grandmother last night, and she said there has become a huge division in her church over homosexuality (she’s Lutheran). Apparently half the congregation decided that they didn’t want to support a gay member in college afar, and it turned into many leaving the church because the pastor and other members wouldn’t disfellowship her. I was so proud of my 80 year old grandmother for taking a stand pro-gay.
Oh, for the uninitiated:
Dennis McKinney (D, Greensburg) is the House Minority Leader.
Jim Ward (D, Wichita) is the House Assistant Minority Leader
Eber Phelps (D, Hays) is the House Minority Whip
…and did I mention Tim Peterson, the democrat chair of the first district?
HE is the most homophobic wingnut in the west. Even more so than Ralph Ostmeyer.
Gee, do you think little timmy peterson keeps getting his ass handed to him out here is because there is NO DIFFERENCE between timmy and ralph?
Other than that ralph supports sane water policy and timmy just supports hays and the governor, right or wrong.
Let me remind you, RALPH was softer on gay marriage than timmy taliban. And we all know how soft ralph is on gay marriage…
“We have held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel “‘a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate.’” Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, 486 U.S. 717, 722 (1988)”
Pmom,
Thank your grandmother on behalf of all of us :)
Sol,
I’ll mark that case for later reading.
Hmmm….
Eber Phelps was at the bottom of the woodpile in destroying Cedar Bluff and granting virutally unrestricted irrigation between Cedar Bluff and Russell. And that included ALL of Ellis county.
And eber was at the bottom of the woodpile in the disasterous democrat effort to keep virginia beemer out of office. He was also instrumental in DESTROYING the democrat party in Trego county.
Eber phelps has yet to endorse a WINNING candidate in western kansas.
Eber was at the bottom of the woodpile in getting ALL democrats in the house and senate to support the insane water policy of joe harkins and governor leadership.
Eber Phelps was at the bottom of the woodpile in getting the hate amendment PASSED.
Gee, command central, do you think there is a little problem with eber phelps? And his boy timmy the taliban peterson? Do you think they actually CONSPIRE to keep democrats from winning in the west?
Jesus wept.
Tom,
A starting point for that — en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause
Sol,
How about posting the whole thing?
“The Kansas Supreme Court did not violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause or the Due Process Clause in its constructions of the laws of Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana regarding interest, since it contradicted no law of those States that was clearly established and that had been brought to the court’s attention. The court pointed to laws of those States authorizing agreements to pay interest at higher than the specified rates, and petitioner did not point to decisions clearly contradicting the court’s conclusion that such an agreement was implied by petitioner’s undertaking with the FPC. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Stahl Petroleum Co., 569 S. W. 2d 480 (Tex.), Okla. Stat., Tit. 23, 8 (1981), and Whitehall Oil Co. v. Boagni, 217 So.2d 707 (La. App.), distinguished. Pp. 730-734.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/486/717/
…and who can forget that JAN PAULS, DINO from hutch, co-sponsored the hate amendment and actively worked to get it passed.
Oh but please, tell me again the kansas democrats and republics dont hate gay people equally.
I opened an email newsletter from my university and it had a wake-up article.
Several years ago, California voters forced the University of California to halt affirmative-action. Not surprisingly minority admissions plummeted. A lot of people who believed in diversity wrung their hands.
Three professors at UC San Diego decided to do more than complain. They decided to get minority students back into UC–the hard way. The only honest way.
They created, with financial assistance from businesses and wealthy donors, a 6th-12th grade charter school on the UC San Diego campus.
Because The Preuss School UCSD is a charter, it doesn’t have to follow normal admissions policies. It uses a lottery. To enter it, a student must:
A. Be from a low-income family, as demonstrated by federal-lunch-subsidy eligibility.
B. Have no parent or guardian who has a college degree. [Statistically, most Preuss parents didn't attend high school.]
C. Demonstrate academic potential and motivation to benefit from an intense college preparatory program.
60% of the students are Hispanic, 13% black, 22% Indo-Chinese, and 6% white.
Preuss opened in 1999, starting with a 150-student 6th grade and smaller classes in higher grades. Preuss held its first full-enrollment graduation this month.
What are the results? Ninety percent of the class was admitted to the University of California. Several students were admitted to Ivy League universities, Stanford and MIT. The remaining 10% were offered community college-to-UC (guaranteed transfer) admissions. Mission Accomplished.
Preuss is showing what good old fashioned unrelenting commitment to a long-term goal, hard work, and a belief that the status-quo in minority education can be changed— including white educators’ hide-bound prejudice that minority students don’t “have what it takes” to get to college, so their schools don’t “need” to offer rigorous college preparatory coursework—can do
At Preuss, every student must take SIX AP courses and pass the AP exams in them. Two students this year passed NINE AP courses.
The school year is 198 days–18 more than regular public schools operate. Students spend an extra 33 minutes each day in school beyond the regular schools’ schedule.
Class-size averages 25 students vs. 34 in regular San Diego public schools.
Almost all the teachers, including 6th-grade teachers, have college of letters and science bachelor’s degrees ( engineering school in two cases) not college of education bachelor’s, and most of the teachers have UC degrees. This makes sense: in order to qualify kids for UC attendance, Preuss uses teachers who’ve made it through UC and know what it takes.
Preuss’s teachers aren’t unionized. They don’t have any interest because they are treated with dignity and respect by the principal, who was the National Principle of the Year in 97.
Most of Preuss’s teachers are young and energetic. Nearly half of Preuss’s teachers have master’s degrees and others are working to earn them. Among older teachers are a Stanford Law School grad who teaches 9th grade Honors English and AP government, two engineers with Ph.D.s (one of them has TWO Ph.D.’s) teaching math, and an AP Chemistry and AP Physics teacher who has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry.
Preuss’s first full-class graduation made it eligible for the Newsweek “Best Public High Schools” survey that ranks schools by dividing the number of AP or IB tests taken in a school by the number of graduating seniors. How did it do in its debut? #9 with 7.3 AP tests per graduating senior. Kansas’s top schools in affluent mostly lily-white Overland Park ranked #493 (1.9), 754 (1.6) and 1023 (1.3).
Before anyone feels good that Mexicans whupped JoCo arrogants, bear in mind that no Wichita school had the necessary minimum-qualifying 1 AP/IB test : 1 student ratio to make the Newsweek list. Neither did any other Kansas school. Nationally 8 of every 100 public schools did. In Kansas it was 0.8 per 100 schools (3 of 358).
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/thisweek/2007/05/29_preuss.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052100975.html?nav=rss_email/components
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18757087/site/newsweek/
Farmgrrl,
Tiffany and I spent three hours with Eber the afternoon before the vote on the ban. We had him convinced to vote against it – his was the last vote we needed.
You can guess who got to him, and what happened after that. And when we lost Eber, we lost Ward Lloyd and one Republican I’ve been asked not to name (aarrrgggh!).
First of all, let me say that I support the state granting gay marriages, but there were some things above that bothered me
1)”not only constitutional principles but issues of common decency – are attempted far too often by the tyranny of the majority.”
Constitutionality is the jurispruudence of the courts,particularly SCOTUS, not “common decency” which is define by whims and personalities
2) “Please define states rights”
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people. 10th amendment to the Constitution
3) “Dems may be a little wimpy about standing up for gay rights, but that isn’t the same as TRYING TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION TO OUTLAW GAY MARRIAGE”.
On that, I agree. Stupid Idea. it bothered me that they would even think about it. ALthough in defense of those wishing to do so, they see it as a reaction to certain judges imposing their unelected views on the people.
4) “I am an ATHEIST and I depsise religious people, jews, christians, muslims, etc. I think that religion should be outlawed”
And so may they despise you as well? Sounds like plenty of HATE to me.
Well, I guess I didn;t find as much that bothered me as I thought I did. Well good. Just my thoughts
…and did I mention that one day before the filing deadline, tim was just starting to CALL people to see who might run for Virginia’s seat?
That was in 2004.
In 2006, peterson had NO candidate to run against Virginia. And TIM has been the only candidate to challenge Ralph for his senate seat.
How’s that working for the democrats in Kansas?
Looks to me like Tim Peterson is the key to REPUBLICAN success in the west.
Nice work tim and eber.
Yeah Tom. And we/I personally donated money to Loyd and went to Garden City and walked for him. He flat LIED to my face about his vote.
I hate liars in BOTH parties.
Like I said, a straight up hater is easier to deal with than the chameleons in the democrat party.
Littlejohn,
The key word in the 10th Amendment is not RIGHTS, it’s POWERS.
States do not have rights. States have power, granted to them by the consent of the governed. The constitutions of the US and states are written as _limits_ on those powers.
Only _individuals_ have rights, and those rights are inherent, not granted by legislative fiat. It’s the job of governments to _protect_ those rights; all too often, though, the government sees its _power_ as _rights_, and uses that power to oppress and restrict the inherent rights of the people.
I posted what was on Wiki. Not trying to bluff or anything. Check my link and you’ll see.
And to the point of the thread, with the court’s findings in the case listed by BFAH, if Texas has a law banning gay marriage while Kansas does not, then Texas would not be forced to recognize a couple married in Kansas, which is how it should be.
If a state passes legislature on an issue, the will of the people of that state, then the state should not be forced to accept the laws of another state.
The finding of the case listed backs that up. Since the other states had no law directly pertinent to the tax, then the original tax was paid. Had the other states had laws or regulations…
…and did I even mention JANIS LEE? Who never met a gay basher or water waster she didnt love?
Of course common decency is defined by time and place and interpretation of the texts of the laws and the constitution….why else would we have had slavery or Jim Crow laws, or poll taxes for example? As I stated, nowhere in the Constitution do you find the penumbra rights of free association, or privacy. Yet I think we would all agree, in principle, that these rights are IMPLIED by the nature of those enumerated. To try to separate the higher intent of a law from its literal text is IMO a grave error.
Farmie,Who do/will you support for Pres in ‘08. It seems you have a dislike for both main stream parties.
Sol, unless you’re a constitutional scholar of repute, I doubt you have the experience to make the call you just did. It seems, however, you are misinterpreting what you read. The reason that the full faith clause was not violated seems to have been, in this instance, the fact that the states involved had not set out a specific statute of limitations on an alleged crime…ergo, nothing to support from the other states’ laws.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
“The court pointed to laws of those States authorizing agreements to pay interest at higher than the specified rates, and petitioner did not point to decisions clearly contradicting the court’s conclusion that such an agreement was implied by petitioner’s undertaking with the FPC. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Stahl Petroleum Co”
Tom-
Very well. I can accept your argument. However, that does not deflect that the Federal government often imposes it’s power and will upon the states in areas the Constitution does not so allow. In legal language, you are correct. In practical, the ability to not have the overlord rule over me is a “right”
As to Inherent, I would agree, although many philosphers would not. including Edmund Burke. (although I think it was about “inaliable rights” which I am perhaps incorrectly assuming as the same thing.
Sol,
So, are you married in every state? Should criminals be extradited from one state to another based on a criminal conviction in a state from which they escaped? Should a “not guilty” verdict in a crime in one state prevent you from exercising your claims to “double jeopardy” being attached if the crime is again tried in another state?
Solly, does Loving v Virginia ring a bell with you?
Let’s see how good your research skills may be. And it also deals directly with state and marriage.
Not interest rates…
Hmmm, one of the most liberal populated states in the U.S., Massachusetts and their position on gay marriage.
Says volumes. :D
See this is what I don’t understand Tom, my grandmother is a staunch republican, my grandfather, anti-everything, is staunchly democratic. My grandma was a feminist for crying out loud, was one of the first women managers of her company.
I think these older people never realized that the parties up and switched sides on them at one point. I don’t particularly like some of the senior citizen voters in my own party…their belief system that is…that’s not saying I have anything against senior citizens. I just think they believe everything the Faux news channel says, and they also believe everything the president tells them to believe.
I’m not trying to fight you guys. All I am saying is that gay marriage and MANY other laws should be determined by the states.
If it is not clearly outlined by the constitution, then the constitution CLEARLY states that it is a state’s issue?
Why do y’all want to disregard the constitution?
BFAH,If you are married in state A in some nontraditional manner and move to state B. If State B has no laws against the marriage you are in, then your are still married. If State B does have a law pertaining to your situation, then you would need to contact a lawyer of that state to determine. Pretty basic.
“Should criminals be extradited from one state to another based on a criminal conviction in a state from which they escaped?”If a person is found in state A that has committed a crime in State B, then yes, the criminal should be extradited. We aren’t talking about national borders, we are talking about states. Crossing a state line does not erase your past. Doesn’t seem like a very good question.
“Should a “not guilty” verdict in a crime in one state prevent you from exercising your claims to “double jeopardy” being attached if the crime is again tried in another state?”
If you commit a crime in state A, then that state has jurisdiction. If they find you not guilty, then no other state has claim to trial since no crime has been committed there. Your query doesn’t make much sense.
If the Supreme Court outlaws homosexuality across the board because of a case brought up in New Hampshire, should every state suffer the finding? Shouldn’t states be able to decide for themselves?
Sol,
I think the reason you’re catching flack is because you state your position as though the issues were black and white. They aren’t…if you just look at the difficulties the SCOTUS has had in determining where and when the full faith and credit clause is applicable.
Farmie,No it does not. My research skill isn’t amazing by any stretch, but I’ll look into it.
Sol,
yet the Supreme Court has been evasive on some of the very “common sense” things you seem to believe.
There is the “public policy” exception that the SCOTUS has recognized in the full faith clause…for example, if the legal pronouncements of one state conflict with the public policy of another state, federal courts in the past have been reluctant to force a state to enforce the pronouncements of another state in contravention of its own public policy. So you might be able to escape your conviction in one state if the state to which you’ve fled doesn’t publicly support the elements of the conviction (read here death penalty as a possible bone of contention).
Certain things should be state issues, but other things should not. Civil rights is one of those that should be federal across the board.
Sol,
Don’t watch much Law & Order I guess. Cases always arise where, for example, a murder is thought to have been committed in one jurisdiction, and then found to have actually occurred in another…like New Jersey/New York…being neighbors often separated by only the boundary running down the middle of a river.
HEY they forgot the date today on the thread! I like that feature (actually, I asked for it) :D.
Please say ya’ll liked that too. I got tired of not knowing which open thread I was linking to.
BRING back the dteline! Makes it a lot easier to follow a particular thread
Farmie,
On the face of it, Virginia was wrong. Virginia should not have recognized the union, as their current law dictated. I don’t feel they had the right to convict though. Just not validate the marriage within state boundaries.
The trial judge quoting scripture was a bit of as well. It was a legal matter. Even though the law was passed by Virginians on religious or moral grounds, the scripture had no place in the court room.
The Supreme Court’s ruling was spot on. It should have changed Virginia’s law and no other state. The members of each state in turn could petition their state to overturn any similar law.
BFAH,
I am no lawyer as you can plainly see. I am merely a layperson. I do believe in getting back to what our forefather’s built for us. Small federal government, few federal laws, and the states governing its people.
P_Mom,The civil rights are guaranteed by the constitution. I am all in favor of that. Set the lower limits of freedoms in the federal government – as outlined in the constitution, and all other issues not outlined therein to be governed by the states and the people of those states (through voting)
Here ya go Solly. THIS is the case.
http://www.answers.com/topic/loving-v-virginia
You can get the entire decision by googling loving v virginia
Are you implying that SCOTUS disagreed with the constitution?
Gee, whose opinion should we take? Yours? Or SCOTUS? Because they were pretty clear…
Sol,
There we agree. However, having a federal system is going to naturally lead to friction among the states themselves and with the federal government.
As a rather interesting point in passing, some of the tremendous expansion of the powers of the federal government that resulted from certain interpretations of the Constitution that seem questionable at best (like the Commerce clause covering everything….) have actually led to the US being the powerful industrial society it is and to many of the luxuries we now enjoy that we might not be enjoying if the laws were read otherwise….Makes you wonder “what if”
Farmie,got it from Wiki.
Which part of this makes you think I disagree with the SCOTUS or the constituiton?
“The Supreme Court’s ruling was spot on. It should have changed Virginia’s law and no other state. The members of each state in turn could petition their state to overturn any similar law.”
Anon: “Meadowlark, can you bring a little more conspiracy theory to the table?”
This isn’t about “conspiracy” but about responsible government.
I reported facts in today’s posting. Why doesn’t the press routinely report political contributions when appointments are made to let the public decide if an appointment is appropriate? The amounts and timing shouldn’t matter. The public doesn’t have the right to know about political money from appointees that affect public policy and spending?
Jill Docking’s contribution to Sebelius was in 2001, but she’s quite involved in the Kansas Democratic Party. Perhaps a $5000 contribution on 11/24/203 and another $5000 on 6/8/2005 to the Kansas Democratic State Committee is a bit more current? Or Jill’s $2000 to Nancy Boyda on 6/13/2006 and another $2000 on 12/22/2006 is a bit more current? I intentionally left out the facts that Docking was a Kansas Delegate to the DNC Convention in 2004, was an underwriter for a ProKanDo Fundraising Event in June 2004, gave ProKanDo $1000 in 2005 and $250 in 2006. Is that a bit more current and relevant? I was trying to keep abortion out of the argument, but Docking’s political money, and that of her husband, are huge for Kansas Democrats. Jill Docking is also a member of Kansans for Lifesaving Cures ‚Äì a group that spent over $100,000 on two political mailings against Kline and for Morrison. Is this group concerned with a “cure” for young women with single-episode depression, which would be a life-saving cure for the unborn children for some that seek treatment at Tiller’s clinic?
One could make the case rather easily that three of these recent appoints are mostly political and have less to do with the job to be done – like the LJWorld article suggested two years ago. Appointments to Docking, Sherrer, and to a lesser degree, Shank, are mostly political appointments. Their focus will likely be more political than solving problems and helping citizens of Kansas. The other three appointees are not that well known, but whether they are Republican or Democrat, they all seem willing to give money to Democrats – and 2 out of those 3 gave money to Sebelius. Republicans that only give money to Republicans need not apply.
Raising taxes usually hurts businesses and families, and these appointees in particular seem more inclined to raise taxes for education than institute plans for fiscal responsibility. Under Sebelius Kansas government jobs and spending are increasing faster than income levels of the citizens. How long can that continue before we have a real problem?
Tom: “Oh, and speaking of hiring liars – exactly what did Brenda Landwehr hire you to do for her campaign last year?”
I collect, analyze and report on voter and political information, so why is it surprising that someone is willing to pay for such information and advice? When Sebelius appoints me to a position, I would be more than happy to explain the checks I’ve written to political candidates and causes: The online database shows only a $100 cash contribution to a candidate from me and that was more than five years ago ‚Äì all the other ones were in-kind contributions and total $150, the most recent one was over three years ago. My wife gave a candidate $100, also over five years ago. In the last year,I have made $50 contributions to the RNC, the Kansas Republican Party and the local county Republican Party ‚Äì enough to be included on their mailing lists. Am I now “clean” enough to make public comments? Why is attacking the messenger easier and more relevant than the political facts I’m presenting?
“The members of each state in turn could petition their state to overturn any similar law.”
Jesus wept solly, how difficult do you want to make it for those seeking justice.
And HOW much would that cost? And what backlog would it cause?
Isnt what’s good for the goose good for the gander? If it applies to one state, isnt it just common sense that it applies to ALL states and should not be litigated 50+ times?
Good grief!
I believe Meadowlark, you handed Tom his backside on a platter. :)
Kansas Meadowlark-
I am not sure I understand what you are getting at. The fact tat someone made a political donation, and was lateer appointed to a political position?
OK Farmie,And if the Supreme Court found that homosexuality in some way infringed on the rights of citizens and ruled on a New Hampshire issue that homosexuality is illegal, should you be burdened with that finding in Kansas?
Posted on Fri, Jun. 15, 2007New Orleans turns to international aid
By BECKY BOHRERTHE ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEW ORLEANS — The cash-strapped city of New Orleans is turning to foreign countries for help to rebuild as federal hurricane-recovery dollars remain slow to flow.
http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sunherald.com%2F218%2Fv-print%2Fstory%2F77475.html
Solly, I’m not playing “what if” on something that has already been decided by SCOTUS.
SURELY even you can google Lawrence v Texas….
I’m sure the Saudi’s would love to own a lot of the harbors in New Orleans for oil distribution.
Good plan Nagin.
Ummm, yeah, Kansans should be burdened…that is the job of the Supreme Court, as settled by John Marshall very early on.
Sorry, posted these on the wrong thread. Just have to post them twice :)
Handed Tom his ass? heheheheheheh!
Meadowpoop is a paid republican shill, by his own admission and the Ethics Commission reports.
No surprise there. He’s the first shift wingnut on call most days. Yawn.
Gee, folks who give money get political appointments? Color me shocked, SHOCKED I say.
The real shocker is that they are for sale, in many instances, for less than $200. Hee hee. And meadow justifies his own contributions as minimal, but thinks contributions of the same amount for this article were somehow a scandal?
Color me shocked again…
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | June 15, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Ya know meadow, you could put those skills to GOOD use if you wanted REAL dirt on governor leadership.
I gotta wonder why you hype such non stories as this, and the lie about jazzfest, but you dont post REAL info that REALLY could damage sebelius?
I wonder WHO pays you sometimes.
Post some info on Steve Irsik, Don Paxson, the members of the water board and the water authority. THERE is the real dirt on governor leadership that might REALLY bring her down.
But hell no. You’d rather nibble on the edges with nonsense than go after the REAL stories.
Whatsamatter, you just a jokester or do you really want to put important info out there?
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | June 15, 2007 at 12:15 PM
“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
“No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”
So then wouldn’t this and the federal definition of marriage being that marriage is a union between a man and a woman be the end of gay marriage?
The federal government has defined it as such. Why then should the states do otherwise?
“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only _a_ legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
So it’s only “a”, and not “the”.
“Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated in his dissenting opinion to the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision that he feared application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to the majority’s decision in that case might destroy “the structure . . . that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions.” If Scalia’s dissenting opinion held true, the majority ruling could potentially negate the DOMA and create a legal loophole allowing same-sex marriages and obliging all other states to recognize them.”
Solly, you have an incredible ability to mix apples and oranges and muddy the waters.
What you are citing is the defense of marriage act. Federal legislation. I am aware of no SCOTUS decisions regarding it. Several STATE courts have upheld similar laws, but I dont think a challenge to DOMA has reached SCOTUS.
However, Lawrence v. Texas and Loving v. Virginia are USSCOTUS decisions, not state decisions.
I thought we were talking about the US supremes and their decisions, not federal LEGISLATION or STATE courts.
Repuke once again proves that he can’t read.The “harbors” are not “mid-city”.And Landrieu is not Nagin.
http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sunherald.com%2F218%2Fv-print%2Fstory%2F77475.html“Separately, Adam Sharp, a spokesman for U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said Landrieu is working with the government of Saudi Arabi on ways it can help restore New Orleans’ City Park.”
http://neworleanscitypark.com/“City Park offers 1300 acres of year-round family fun. Located in the heart of New Orleans’ mid-city,…”
Interesting reading about Lawrence v Texas. (yes, it is the dissenting opinion). But please read before blasting. Apparently, there have been some court rulings about states and morality. This really is fascinating reading.Still, I support Gay marriage. I can find no compelling reason not to have the state sanction such a union.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html
I do like O’Connors concurrence also. Makes a different argument than overturning Browad, but quite good.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZC.html
Just think of the position being bought today for the 500 dollar luncheon and 4000 picture op., bet some deals are getting done today!
cosmos has turned into such a bitter person.
Perhaps he would like a treat?
“here boy, come here! good boy! here’s your treat!”
:D
No, Meadowlark, the point I was trying to make is that you ONLY harp on democratic contributions… and to criticize anything YOU don’t like. Sure they should be public record. But the point of making them public record ISN’T so that conspirists like you can jump in and say “look, anon contributed $50 five years ago for something, OBVIOUSLY they bought their way in”. THAT was my point.
So, if meadow works for the republicans, no wonder he wont post anything regarding the kansas water office and kansas water board.
In case no one has noticed, NEITHER the dems or the repubs want to deal with water issues.
Big ag, big irrigation, big money and big municipalities would not get all they want. And I cant imagine the repubs crossing those constituencies anymore than governor leadership.
There really is no difference between the kansas parties when it comes to water. NONE of them will risk losing some of their biggest contributors.
And the band played on…
ksfarmgrrl-
I am afraid I am fairly ignorant about the water issue. I do know the Ogalla is being slowly depleted, but no specifics. Are you basically against irrigated farming? Municipalities using water? What exactly?
Ogalla= OgalallaSorry
Republican, keep repeating- they ain’t got nothing, they ain’t got nothing…,Justice aide close to prosecutor firings resigns 34 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Another Justice Department official involved in the controversial firings of federal prosecutors is resigning, the department said on Friday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Mike Elston, the chief of staff to outgoing Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, is the fifth Justice Department official to resign since March as the Democratic-led Congress investigates the department’s firing of nine U.S. attorneys.
Elston said he was leaving to join a law firm in the Washington area. His resignation takes effect next Friday.
Some of the fired prosecutors have said they received phone calls from Elston encouraging their silence about the firestorm surrounding Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who ousted the prosecutors last year as part of a plan that originated at the White House.
Critics have questioned whether partisan politics played an improper role in the dismissal plans. President George W. Bush and Gonzales say the firing of nine of the 93 U.S. attorneys, all Bush appointees, was justified, although mishandled.
McNulty, who is also resigning amid the controversy, said in a statement, “With his breadth of trial and appellate experience, I have no doubt he (Elston) will continue to enjoy an outstanding legal career.”
Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) said almost every official involved in the firings was gone, except for Gonzales.
“Alberto Gonzales appears to be the last man standing but he should have been the first to go,” Schumer said.
600,000 raised by bush for Roberts, what did he sell for that?
Littlejohn: “I am not sure I understand what you are getting at. The fact tat someone made a political donation, and was lateer appointed to a political position?”
Yes, I’m talking about “quid pro quo” ‚Äì something for something. Did you look at the LJWorld article about the qualifications of those Sebelius plans to appoint to the Board of Regents? Take a look:
“Newly appointed to the nine-member board are:‚Ä¢ Jarold Boettcher of Beloit, who is president of several companies in the Beloit area.‚Ä¢ Jill Docking of Wichita, a longtime political figure who is vice president of investments with A.G. Edwards and Sons Inc.‚Ä¢ Richard Hedges of Fort Scott, who is a retired educator and former president of Fort Scott Community College.‚Ä¢ Gary Sherrer of Overland Park, who served as lieutenant governor from 1995 to 2003 under former Gov. Bill Graves.‚Ä¢ William Thornton of Atchison, who is vice president of quality management and corporate counsel for MGP Ingredients Inc.”
Richard Hedges from Fort Scott appears to have a background in higher education, but what about the rest? Docking is a “longtime political figure” and Sherrer “served as lieutenant governor”. Those are qualification to guide Kansas higher institutions of education? I was at K-State for 11 years, and with an academic background in research and development, why don’t I qualify?
Lately, there have been complaints about “crumbling classrooms” at Universities in Kansas, yet when I visit KU or K-State all I see are new buildings that weren’t there 10 or 20 years ago. Is it possible money isn’t being spent wisely on buildings? My post was to stimulate discussion about whether these new appointees were likely to rubber-stamp Sebelius’ proposals, which would result in higher taxes for Kansans.
Taxes are plenty high in Kansas. One can move from Kansas to a state in any direction (Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, or Oklahoma) and taxes are cheaper. Why is wanting fiscally responsible government not desirable? When the Kansas press gives Sebelius a pass on almost everything (remember that billion dollars worth of paperclips that the press didn’t ask about?), it’s not fair for anyone to be critical of what she’s doing?* * * * *Anon: “No, Meadowlark, the point I was trying to make is that you ONLY harp on democratic contributions… and to criticize anything YOU don’t like.”
I harp on Sebelius’ political appointments because she more often than not appoints only her contributors. Isn’t that a bit discriminatory when more qualified Kansans are ignored? The Kansas press does little analysis or reporting about this.
So I don’t have free speech? I’m not allowed to criticize anything I don’t like, especially when I research and report facts to encourage a civil public discussion about them?
Last August I was critical of BOTH Congressmen Ryun and Moore for wasting tax dollars through abuse of their franking privilege. The original article was about Democrat Moore, but when it was brought to my attention that Republican Ryun was also guilty of franking abuse, I updated the story:http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/08-06/index.htm
Notice the KS Press abuse in this: The KC Star ignored Moore. The LJWorld took Ryun to task. You criticize me, but I’m trying to add balance ignored by the press.
I have also been critical of “moderate” Republicans in Johnson County who are anxious to export Kansas tax dollars to Missouri when there is little oversight or checks and balances on how the money is spent.
If you get appointed to some position by Sebelius and mostly Democrats are appointed, it’s not relevant to discuss that when Kansas has more Republicans than Democrats? I only discuss political contributions that have some sort of public policy implication, and especially large ones that are ignored by the Kansas press.* * * * *KSFarmGrrl: “he wont post anything regarding the kansas water office and kansas water board.”
I am not all knowing nor do I have time to research everything. I worked on several alternate-energy projects years ago (wind energy, gasohol), and we did some research related to the Ogallala Aquifer ‚Äì but I don’t remember much about it. Why can’t water be your issue, and you research that and post comments about the problems? Aren’t you likely much more knowledgeable about it?
According to the Garden City Telegram article from 2004 I see that Stephen Irsik has a connection to Regent Donna Shank, which could be relevant here:
“Steve Irsik, one of three chairs of the partnership with Larry McCants and Donna Shank, said the partnership is the culmination of prosperity summits set up by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and Lt. Gov. John Moore last year across seven Kansas regions.”
So Irsik and Board of Regent Shank have some connection? I only have limited time and usually burn the midnight oil to do research, so I can’t do everything: What does Sebelius’ Economic Policy Council do? I don’t see anything interesting about Paxson. What is the issue that needs to be investigated? [Sebelius has a teflon-shield, so I doubt anything will bring her down.] Without agriculture for jobs, and small town municipalities and water for people, what would be in Western Kansas? What’s the solution to Kansas’ water problem?
KS FarmGrrl: “gotta wonder why you hype such non stories as this, and the lie about jazzfest, but you dont post REAL info that REALLY could damage sebelius?”
My original story was about Novak’s story about Sebelius being at Jazzfest in New Orleans. I’ll post Novak’s retraction when I find it. Sebelius has never explained why she was in New Orleans (did it have any political or state government purpose?). Her comments I criticized were not focused on helping residents of Greensburg, but rather gaining political points. Why is my criticism unfair?
KSFarmGrrl: “I wonder WHO pays you sometimes.”
No one has ever paid me for posting anything to blogs. I’m on my own. Are you paid for your postings? Can’t a concerned citizen just do the right thing by getting involved in civil discourse about public issues? My motivation for doing what I do is the lack of fairness in the Kansas press ‚Äì oh, and my original motivation for involvement in politics is Bill Clinton in 1996. (I was a Democrat when Clinton was elected. Remember how we had the worst economy in 50 years when Clinton was first elected, then just weeks (not months) after the election he was taking credit for an economic turnaround?)
So instead of calling me a “paid republican shill” why don’t you call me an “ex-Democrat concerned citizen”? Until Sebelius appoints me to a public office, why are my contributions relevant? Are you critical of newspaper publishers that give political contributions (like the Junction City Daily Union publisher) or newspapers that make money from printing political materials? Why do make up rules that apply to me?* * * * *Did I miss any other questions?
I can hardly wait for another round of arrows in my back . This is such a friendly group.
FrmGrrl and Tom–
Okay, I don’t follow state politics that much, but I do follow the national issues:
According to Wikipedia, the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” originated with ROBERT BORK. It’s a typical effort by the reich-wing to whip up its fundy base. Remember the “constitutional amendment to protect the American flag” and the “pledge of alligence” bs?
Same deal.
Anyway, here’s the summation:
“Vote in Senate 2006The Senate vote, on June 7, 2006, was rejected 49 – 48,[12] with the vote mostly following party lines with Democrats opposing and Republicans in favor.”
Only two Democratic Senators voted in favor of the amendment.
This hot-button issue was created out of thin air by the Repukes to fire up their hate-filled base.
To blame the Dems for it is like blaming the Dems for the war.
Yes, they could have done more to stop it, but at least AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL they aren’t actively demonizing the GLBT community for political gain.
I guess I missed where someone blamed national dems for DOMA. Even if Clinton signed it.
Maybe the NATIONAL democrats are not targeting gay folks, but the differences between Boyda and ryun on THIS issue are minimal. We’ll see how she DOES on this issue, because the gay community already knows it cant trust what she SAYS.
And the kansas democrats? Remember, more republicans in kansas voted AGAINST the hate amendment than democrats.
And governor leadership? She cant run away from gay voters FAST enough. Look at Tom’s postings regarding Jim Ward, Dennis McKinney and Anthony Hensley and tell me again WHY I should support the kansas democrats?
Well, you’ve got a point, Grrl.
Nancy Boyda summed up her position on the war in Iraq by saying that the American people re-elected Bush, so that means they support his war.
We need to support PROGRESSIVES, not just Democrats . . .
Okay, Grrl & Tom–
I googled the heck out of this and I can’t seem to find the record of who voted for what.
Could it be that “more Republicans voted against the hate amendment than Dems” because there are more Republicans in the Statehouse?
House votes on the marriage ban (sorted by party):
No Ballard Barbara 44 DNo Carlin Sydney 66 DNo Crow Marti 41 DNo Davis Paul 46 DNo Dillmore Nile 92 DNo Faust-Goudeau Oletha 84 DNo Flaharty Geraldine 98 DNo Flora Vaughn 57 DNo Garcia Delia 103 DNo Hawk Tom 67 DNo Kirk Nancy 56 DNo Kuether Annie 55 DNo Lane Harold 58 DNo Loganbill Judith 86 DNo Mah Ann 53 DNo Menghini Julie 3 DNo Miller Melody 89 Dno Peterson Michael 37 DNo Ruiz Louis 32 DNo Sawyer Tom 95 DNo Showalter Judy 78 DNo Storm Sue 22 DNo Svaty Josh 108 DNo Winn Valdenia 34 DYes Burroughs Tom 33 DYes Feuerborn Bill 5 DYes Gatewood Doug 1 DYes Grant Robert 2 DYes Henderson Broderick 35 DYes Henry Jerry 63 DYes Holland Tom 10 DYes Larkin Bruce 62 DYes Long Margaret 36 DYes McKinney Dennis 116 DYes Pauls Janice 102 DYes Phelps Eber 111 DYes Ruff Candy 40 DYes Sharp Bonnie 31 DYes Thull Tom 72 DYes Treaster Mark 101 DYes Ward Jim 88 DYes Williams Jerry 8 DNo Cox Ray 39 RNo Craft Barbara 65 RNo Gordon Lana 52 RNo Hill Don 60 RNo Huntington Terrie 25 RNo Jack Jeff 7 RNo O’Malley Ed 24 RNo Owens Thomas 19 RNo Pottorff Jo Ann 83 RNo Sharp Stephanie 17 RNo Sloan Tom 45 RNo Yoder Kevin 20 RNo Yonally Jim 16 RYes Aurand Clay 109 RYes Beamer Virginia 118 RYes Bethell Bob 113 RYes Brown Anthony 38 RYes Brunk Steven 85 RYes Burgess Mike 51 RYes Carlson Richard 61 RYes Carter Eric 48 RYes Colloton Pat 28 RYes Dahl Donald 70 RYes DeCastro Willa 96 RYes Decker Kathe 64 RYes Edmonds John 112 RYes Faber John 120 RYes Flower Joann 47 RYes Freeborn Joann 107 RYes George Pat 119 RYes Goico Mario 100 RYes Grange John 75 RYes Hayzlett Gary 122 RYes Holmes Mitch 114 RYes Holmes Carl 125 RYes Horst Deena 69 RYes Huebert Steve 90 RYes Huff David 30 RYes Humerickhouse Joe 59 RYes Hutchins Becky 50 RYes Huy Bonnie 87 RYes Johnson Everett 77 RYes Johnson Dan 110 RYes Kelly Kasha 79 RYes Kelsey Richard 93 RYes Kiegerl Mike 43 RYes Kilpatrick Patricia 29 RYes Kinzer Lance 14 RYes Knox Forrest 13 RYes Krehbiel Carl 74 RYes Landwehr Brenda 91 RYes Light Bill 124 RYes Long-Mast Peggy 76 RYes Loyd Ward 123 RYes Mays Doug 54 RYes McCreary Bill 80 RYes McLeland Joe 94 RYes Merrick Ray 27 RYes Miller Frank 12 RYes Morrison Judy 23 RYes Morrison Jim 121 RYes Myers Don 82 RYes Neufeld Melvin 115 RYes Newton Dean 21 RYes Novascone Todd 99 RYes Oharah Lynne 4 RYes Olson Robert 26 RYes O’Neal Michael 104 RYes Otto Bill 9 RYes Peck Virgil 11 RYes Pilcher-Cook Mary 18 RYes Powell Larry 117 RYes Powers Ted 81 RYes Schwab Scott 49 RYes Schwartz Sharon 106 RYes Shultz Clarck 73 RYes Siegfried Arien 15 RYes Swenson Dale 97 RYes Vickrey Jene 6 RYes Watkins Jason 105 RYes Weber Shari 68 RYes Wilk Kenny 42 R
Senate votes on the marriage ban (sorted by party):
No Betts Donald 29 DNo Francisco Marci 2 DNo Goodwin Greta 32 DNo Haley David 4 DNo Hensley Anthony 19 DNo Kelley Laura 18 DNo Steineger Chris 6 DYes Lee Janis 36 DYes Barone Jim 13 DYes Gilstrap Mark 5 DNo Allen Barbara 8 RNo Brungardt Pete 24 RNo Reitz Roger 22 RNo Vratil John 11 RNo Wysong David 7 RYes Apple Pat 12 RYes Barnett Jim 17 RYes Brownlee Karin 23 RYes Bruce Terry 34 RYes Donovan Les 27 RYes Elmer Jay 35 RYes Huelskamp Tim 38 RYes Jordan Nick 10 RYes Journey Phillip 26 RYes McGinn Carolyn 31 RYes Morris Stephen 39 RYes O’Connor Kay 9 RYes Ostmeyer Ralph 40 RYes Palmer Peggy 16 RYes Petersen Mike 28 RYes Pine Roger 3 RYes Pyle Dennis 1 RYes Schmidt Derek 15 RYes Schmidt Vicki 20 RYes Schodorf Jean 25 RYes Taddiken Mark 21 RYes Teichman Ruth 33 RYes Umbarger Dwayne 14 RYes Wagle Susan 30 RYes Wilson Dennis 37 R
Thanks for the info, Tom.
Now I’ve got to count all those votes.
Dang.
Now I’ve got to count all those votes.Posted by: CapnAmerica | June 16, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Welcome to my world!!
Okay, Tom & FGrrl–
I split these votes into R YES R NO D YES and D NO.
I got R YES 95, R NO 18. That’s 84 percent Republican voting in favor.
For Dems, it’s D YES 21 and D NO 31. That’s 40 percent of Dems voting in favor.
Conclusion: while I am dismayed to see 40 percent voting for the hate amendment, one still has to acknowledge that the SIXTY PERCENT against is a lot better than the SIXTEEN PERCENT against from the opposing side.
No way can I see that the Dems are “just as bad” as the Repukes . . .
Bad, yes. “Just as bad,” no way.
Meadowlark,
About your June 15, 11:59 AM post:
Nice job of sidestepping the question I asked you: What exactly did Landwehr pay you for? Do you honestly think your disingenuous answer will somehow distract me? Your programming specialty is in imaging and graphic displays, just like the kind of software used in Sedgwick County’s iVotronic voting machines. Again, what kind of “data work” did you do for Landwehr?
Your attempt to wave something shiny continued nicely with your weak attempts to cover your tracks by referring only to your donations listed in the “online database.” You and I both know that individual contributions made to non-profits, such as Kansans For Life’s foundation, aren’t reportable. How much money do you give them every year?
Speaking again of KFL, you never did respond to my comments about your lies about their budget. You singled out their PAC filing, and flat out said “they can’t even pay their rent.” That’s a lie, and you know it. Most of KFL’s money is funneled through their non-profit Foundation and their non-profit Kansas corporation.
Meadowlark, I looked at all of KFL’s PAC filings. There is not a _single_ rent payment listed on _any_ of them. You and I both know the PAC offices rent-free at KFL’s Wichita headquarters.
Meadowlark, you invent “conspiracies” out of thin air, you twist people’s words and actions into unrecognizable versions of radical-conservative lies.
All the things you accuse ProKanDo and Dr Tiller of doing are _actually_ the things _your_ people do. You hope that by spreading enough lies and enough b*llsh*t, that you can distract people’s attention from the radicon takeover you want to see happen.
Nice post Tom. You can be happy that your mother would be proud of this one.
Posted by: TT | June 16, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Something smells like unwashed troll.
You just now noticed yourself Tom? Read just one of your own posts maybe?
Another rare access to the internet and opportunity to post…
So much for free speech!
I went out to let el presidente arbusto (bush) know what I thought of him the other day.
I was not carrying a gun, sword, sharp stick, or even a sign. Yet I was chased away by the cops who told me I was a “security risk”.
Again, so much for free speech! And that is just what I told the officers.
If you block their clear path of view within the described security perimeter, then you were a security risk.
Walk on by……………………..
I blocked no view. They apparently did not like my editorial t shirt. But I’m really not that surprised. In Kansas? If it aint buck toothed bushspeak? Speech aint free.
Actually? I think bush LIKES to see protesters. His masters WANT the average American as miserable and uncomfortable as possible. Lots of protesters demonstrate to them he is doing his job well.
JR?? Should have said you were an illegal here for the amnesty. Should have said me no speakee eenglish and demanded your rights at the Mexican consulate.
What did the t-shirt say? Was it profane? Are you still showing your kid porno?
Walk.
Repubican,
Are you still faking a disability so you can collect government benefits?
One of the prosecutors in the Jo Co DA office is speaking out. I heard her last night. She left and is working for Morrison in Topeka now. She said Phill is ruining the DA’s office. She told many horror stories. A murderer was up for parole on Monday and no one from the DA’s office was there to represent the people of Johnson County. The attorney who should have been there was playing golf. She told of another case where the defendant was charged with 5 felonies and had no attorney (she called this a no brainer win) and Kline’s people let him plea down to a misdemeanor and time served. And Kline is calling that a win.
The only case he has won was that murder trial last week where the defendant’s mother testified against him. DUIs are being thrown out because evidence is lost. Criminal defense attorneys are lining up to get easy wins since the prosecutors are so incompetent. 20 of 32 attorneys in the DA’s office have left since January, some fired and some quit.
She said someone needs to file a FOIA and find out how much restitution has been collected and paid since January in Johnson County.
Here’s the best part: Phill is working 6 to 8 hours a week – for $143K a year.
Tom:I missed your June 16 12:01 PM response until now.
I have never heard of iVotronic voting machines, and don’t know details of any voting machine in Sedgwick County or anywhere else. I have never studied software or algorithms used in voting machines, so I have no clue about the intent of your question or what you’re implying by asking it. I know how computer graphics and image processing algorithms are used in certain medical devices, but I can only guess what’s going on in a voting machine — I’ve never studied them. Can you send me some manuals?
Are you aware that the Helping America Vote Act (HAVA) passed by Congress resulted in statewide changes to the voter registration data used statewide last year? The changes were implemented in January 2006 by the Kansas Secretary of State. Are you aware there were numerous ‚Äì I repeat, numerous — problems with the data all over the state? (The problems were in the lists sold by the Secretary of State to candidates and campaigns that may or may not be a problem for the local election offices). Are you aware of the numerous precinct changes made in Sedgwick County last year? Are you aware voting precincts in certain areas of the state still cannot be accurately determined now from the voter data? And guess what: The Secretary of State doesn’t seem to care about identifying and fixing these problems. I sent lengthy E-mails last year to the Secretary of State’s office about problems in the data. Those E-mails were mostly ignored. Why is it so hard to believe that someone might want to pay to understand these changes?
Why are you inventing rules that only apply to me? The Wichita Eagle can publish biased news stories, biased editorials and when I try to counter some of that bias, I’m supposed to follow your disclosure “rules” that you don’t impose on the Eagle?
“The Democrat”, which is an official publication of the Kansas Democratic Party, is printed by the Wichita Eagle. From p. 10, May 2007, “The Democrat”: “In keeping with our Kansas Democratic Party tradition of working with union-friendly businesses, The Democrat is printed at the Wichita Eagle in Wichita, KS. Due to a change in format, the Wichita Eagle is no longer able to print the Democrat in newspaper form.” — Jenny Davidson, KDP Communications Director
Do you require the Eagle publish exactly what they do for the Kansas Democratic Party and exactly what they print for the Kansas Democrats? The Eagle provides goods and services to a political party and you never challenge that? Why is there disclosure for me, but not for the Eagle?
I publish articles you do not like about political contributors being appointed to government positions ‚Äì maybe I’ll post another one in the next day or so. These appointments affect how Kansas government works. These political appointments might affect the citizens of the State of Kansas. So, why isn’t their political background, including political contributions, a legitimate topic for public discussion? Why do you attack me as the messenger and try to squelch my free speech? Why are you so rude and intolerant?
The point of my posting, which started this thread, was that Sebelius was making political appointments that likely would just rubber stamp her views about increased spending for higher education with little regard for responsible spending. How are my contributions to KFL relevant to whether Sebelius’ appointments to her contributors might affect higher taxes in Kansas? Was Sebelius appointing me to a government position?
Another time I think political contributions are appropriate for public discussion is when a “news” organization makes endorsements but does not disclose their political contributions. As the Kansas Meadowlark, I have NEVER made political endorsements of candidates in any article I have written. But when the publisher of the Junction City Daily Union makes contributions and then does not disclose those contributions at the time endorsements are made, I think that’s fair for public discussion.
You twist and distort what I say, you jump to conclusions, you are derogatory and berate, and are otherwise a very hostile, unfriendly and unfair person. You are quite intolerant of others’ views when you disagree and you think you’re the only one with freedom of speech. Let me suggest this: Try to be civil. Try to be nice. Try to respect others when you disagree.
Is civil discourse dead in Wichita and Kansas?http://ci.lexington.ma.us/NoPlace4Hate/CivilDiscourse.htm
Shall I get you a tissue?
Or perhaps a whole box?
But seriously, Meadlowlark, you posted this outright lie, which you _knew_ to be a lie:
“No prolife group has anywhere near that much money. KFL, the biggest group, spent $8907 according to their Jan 2007 report, $22,320 in their Oct 2006 report, $14,744 in their July 2006 report, and $47 in their Jan 2006. KFL can barely afford their rent in comparison to the political money muscle that ProKanDo has.Posted by: Kansas Meadowlark | June 14, 2007 at 02:53 AM
That was at the close of an incredibly long post, made even longer by the fact that you posted it twice in a row on the same thread. You spent, on that post and others, endless words trying to “prove” that Morrison is in Tiller’s “pocket.”
Or are you going to claim you don’t know about KFL’s offices, their staff, and their multiple non-profit corporations that are used the in the same way you accuse ProKanDo of operating?
You want to talk about distortions? You want to play little conspiracy games? We can play, Meadowlark. But it’s pretty obvious that when that shoe is on _your_ foot, it fits far too tightly for comfort.
Oh, and two other things:
1. When the Eagle’s presses aren’t busy printing newspapers, they do commercial printing for anyone with a checkbook. Even _you_ can have the Eagle print for you. They’re fast, reasonable quality, decent rates, and they pay their union employees a living wage.
2. How in bloody hell am I squelching your free-speech rights? Am I holding a gun to your head, forcing you into silence? That’s so laughable an accusation it’s pathetic. I hear the same ridiculous crap from radical leftists. “You criticized what I said, so you’re taking away my free speech rights.” What a load of hogwash. You should know better.
Tom quoting me: “KFL can barely afford their rent in comparison to the political money muscle that ProKanDo has.”
Maybe I could have expressed this more elegantly, but you immediately jump to wrong conclusions and call this a “lie”. Did you look at this?http://ci.lexington.ma.us/NoPlace4Hate/CivilDiscourse.htmIn particular:‚”Agree to listen.- When unsure, clarify what you heard- Realize that what you say and what people understand you to have said may be different”
The key word in my statement above was “in comparison to”. I was not making an absolute statement, I was making a relative one. I was not saying KFL was not paying rent. I was trying to make a comparison suggesting that ProKanDo has far more money than KFL does. Perhaps I should have said KFL is “poor” compared with all the money ProKanDo has. KFL spends far less than ProKanDo on their 501c(3), 501c(4) and PAC activities. Would that be a fair statement? Or, how about, you can only compare the amounts on a logarithm scale since ProKanDo’s money is so much larger than KFL’s?
KFL is funded only by those concerned with speaking for the unborn. KFL’s “client” has no money and those supporting KFL are standing are principle because they feel our society will be better if we all respect life from conception to natural death. I won’t bother commenting how/why Tiller/ProKanDo has so much money.
I’m sorry that was posted twice ‚Äì I’m not sure how that happened, but I must have pressed “post” when I thought I pressed “Preview”. I was surprised to see that too, but there was no way to remove the second one.
Unions. In principle I have no problem with unions when they protect the safety and treatment of workers.
Tom: “How in bloody hell am I squelching your free-speech rights?”
It’s not that you’re critical ‚Äì fair criticism is fine. But, you’re rude and you try to intimidate — you try to silence through that intimidation. You claim I’m distorting, when you intentionally misinterpret what I tried to say. You say “lie” instead of quoting figures and say they don’t add up. You’re not interested in a fair verbal fight. You’re not interested in seeing both sides of an argument. You just try to make sure others’ opinions are belittled.You don’t practice civil discourse:http://ci.lexington.ma.us/NoPlace4Hate/CivilDiscourse.htm
Where in this thread have you focused on the point of irresponsible State of Kansas appointments could result in higher taxes with little fiscal accountability? Your posts are to attack me, not what I was saying.
“The key word in my statement above was “in comparison to”.”
The key words in your endless posts are the ones that continuously try to say that Sebelius, Morrison, and others are “bought” or “in the pocket of” Dr Tiller and/or ProKanDo. In the post referenced, you actually listed numbers disclosed by KFL’s PAC, and implied that was all the money they had. I’m used to having _my_ comments taken out of context, but when liars take their _own_ statements out of context, I know I’ve seen the bottom of the vortex that IS the radicon spin machine.
“KFL spends far less than ProKanDo on their 501c(3), 501c(4) and PAC activities.”
You’re going to post KFL’s c3 and c4 donor lists, expenditures, and budgets to back that up, right?
“KFL is funded only by those concerned with speaking for the unborn.”
I’m waiting on those donor lists…
“Unions. In principle I have no problem with unions when they protect the safety and treatment of workers.”
It wasn’t about unions, and you know it. You tried to equate the Eagle’s commercial printing business with the Democratic Party’s agenda. Nice try at distraction, though.
“you’re rude”
Fair enough. You’re a liar.
“you try to intimidate”
Out of tissues already? Ready for a new box? I hear Sam’s Club sells ‘em by the case.
You don’t like what I write? That’s why we have vertical scroll, and OFF buttons.