sunnyFair, 77.0°

Ken Schmidt

Comment history

superwizbang (Ken Schmidt) says...

Because in doing it this way, attention is shifted away from the question, "should we do it at all" to, "how should we do it now?" Had the commissioners made the decision one way or another previously, someone would have bawled. At this point, they can now say, "hey, you voted, you *made* use do it this way." It is no longer a question of *if* we should do it. It served their purposes no matter the outcome.

superwizbang (Ken Schmidt) says...

Laura, I am not commenting on your call for action. I am simply confused by your label. Since when is the term "lock-em-up at all costs" a Democrat designation? Your point might have been made without a political designation and carried the same message. Just curious about your evaluation when implying party affiliation has an impact upon decisions--and more specifically, how placing more people behind bars makes a prosecutor more of a Democrat?

superwizbang (Ken Schmidt) says...

Bob, you must have passed her the "liberal gene" you so "liberally" like to label others with....

superwizbang (Ken Schmidt) says...

stop putting lights on major thoroughfares in the city. (yes, yelling intended). I get most folks in this doggone city are not in any hurry to get anywhere, but what good is a doggone 45 mph speed limit if you have a doggone light at every 100 yards? Who the heck is planning this thing? Most cities will put medians and limit the number of feeds into major roads. Not Lawrence. We want everyone to be able to walk out of their house, leave the driveway, and immediately get on to a major road. Who cares if folks who work and have to commute during the day for those jobs actually have to *BE" somewhere--God forbid they have to drive to do so. You have two doggone roads, with lights, no more than 1/2 mile to either side of Queens road. Make this a right-turn only spot and if they need to take a left, use the super 2-lane or 4-lane roads to either immediate side. It will make it safer for your bike path, mixed use path, dog walking zone, morel hunting area, tailgating zone, urban slide reserved location and everything else which this town feels is needed to install a new road. Darn it. Please stop with this.

superwizbang (Ken Schmidt) says...

not no but heck no. i am tired of funding someone else to have a quick route to easy access to a major road. You built there, bought there, live there. Don't expect others to pay for your shortcuts. If you want the road to exist, take it as it exists today. That intersection should reside as a right-turn-only conclusion at 6th street. If you need to get onto 6th, go to either of the lights which are found not more than 1/2 mile either way. stop putting lights on important thoroughfares in town. You have paved 4-land and super 2-lane roads right next to it. I don't want to pay for it, I don't want to see a discussion about it. I have a raising mil levy on a home which has been over valued by the county, more than similar new homes in the category. The problem is, I also have deteriorating gutters which the city has openly refused to replace. Go look up the concrete the city decided to use in the early 2000's. The conclusion by the public works division? Put some cold patch in a poor manner in front of my home and not worry about the value which that solution hinders the overall front-door appeal. It's something many of us face in this town. Time to blow the whistle and call a timeout.

superwizbang (Ken Schmidt) says...

I have no issue with the city asking home owners to repair sidewalks. If they choose to enforce making us, as homeowners, responsible for upkeep--> THEY need to take responsibility for upkeep of gutters! Trashed gutters are part of the front facad of the home and DO affect home appeal and market pricing. I have fought for years to have deteriorating gutters replaced with little results and continuous property elevations not on-par with market values. If one, then the other. Don't hold folks to standards you do not keep. Stop giving kickbacks.

superwizbang (Ken Schmidt) says...

Indeed David. I should have finished my thought. We both know manufacturers are able to mass produce weapons which require only a small mod to the firing mechanism or pin. There is a reason the 16/M4 only shoots 3 round bursts. Its for accuracy and to keep folks from wasting rounds. There is no reason the public should be able to buy and own a weapon which is easily converted to fire more rounds than a member of the military who is trained to use this weapon and yet still limited to 3 rounds per trigger release.

superwizbang (Ken Schmidt) says...

I'm sure there are. Just as there are folks who would love to, and have, brought their legally owned and licensed open-carry arms into the airport. Guess what, that doesn't make that a wise choice. Stop redirecting the discussion. I don't think very many folks support completely banning your right to own a weapon. As a veteran, proudly serving in the 4th Infantry Division during my tours of duty, the issue is the general public owning a weapon they can't handle and which can be modified to shoot more rounds down range than my M-16 could in combat with the lever set to "A." You can't own a hand grenade because stupid people will do stupid things to a lot of people all at once. Same logic fits here. I don't want my children in a classroom with a lightly trained vigilante with a penchant for carrying arms around little kids and the itch to use it. If you want guns in the schools so bad, use your tax return and support hiring highly trained officers to man the doors while school is in session. Otherwise, I have the choice to decide whether I want my *personal* children in a classroom with a teacher wielding a weapon I have no *IDEA* whether they know how to use. No thanks. The issue is whether the general public should own a *fully automatic* weapon or not. It should be illegal. Semi or less is fine and clips limited to no more than 10 rounds. At least at that point, it gives folks a fighting chance. Just saying.

superwizbang (Ken Schmidt) says...

...ooorrrrr we can require that our lawmakers, no matter the party affiliation, focus on making laws which are central to the full populace and keep governing and religion separate as our forefathers and constitution have set forth. Chuck Brodie, I think we have seen enough of specific politicians charging in without giving thought to others. Let's get things done while thinking of the entire populace and not special interests. I don't see the problem with forming a committee to figure things out as long as all views are represented and the goal is a general consensus on a timeline. This nation was founded upon checks and balances. Politicians need to quit making moves to remove them.

superwizbang (Ken Schmidt) says...

That was my point as well. I think removing gifts from the health care industry was a good thing...and I worked for big pharma at the time. Just the same, I think if a legislator wants to hear what a lobbyist has to say, let them do it on their own dime--and make it illegal to give kickbacks to said lawmakers.

Full LJWorld.com site