Log in ·
I rarely, if ever, agree with Josh. However I believe I have the same sentiment in this situation as he does. Drake may not be liked, or have an untarnished record, but sounds like he may have some grounds here. I am not sure that anyone can really judge his actions that day and make a determination that he and the women involved weren't scared for their lives. Even though the victim and Drake may have been acquaintances, and even though he may have originally been let in, he was asked to leave, and was high on drugs.
Not sure if anyone has dealt with anyone acting erratic on meth? There is no way to predict how the situation will go. I feel like if we have these king of the castle and stand your ground laws in place, then we should observe them. I feel like if we allow the government and police to use the same type of excuses in these situations, that it was a split second decision and that people feared for their lives and no one could understand unless put in that position, then individuals should be allowed the same discretion without fear of a prosecutor inserting their own personal judgement that the situation wasn't as the defendant perceived it.
Posted 17 December 2017, 12:01 p.m.
I know. I usually never click on links from posters like this as I don't want the site to conflate my visit with another individual that "agrees" with them, but recently have done so just out of curiosity. Yesterday I clicked on one for yournewswire.com. After visiting a couple of these sites I completely understand how we got to where we are today. It's no less alarming than the radicalization of US citizens by ISIS/terrorist organization online. It's the exact same thing.
Posted 7 November 2017, 12:58 p.m.
You're posting a link to a blog as if it's fact? I now understand why you view the world the way you do. That link is completely unbiased and I'm sure it's completely factual (sarcasm), opening with this line:
"The erasing of history is a characteristic of leftist totalitarian dictatorships used to reprogram their people much like computer memory is erased prior to reprogramming, and the intolerant left continues its march to erase American history by attacking Southern heritage with the removal of Confederate monuments scattered across the South."
Posted 7 November 2017, 11:50 a.m.
You mean to tell me Jay-Z didn't shape shift into a reptile on a flight like that website claims?
Posted 6 November 2017, 11:49 a.m.
Who cares? The Fritzels are richer and doing much better now. As the community of Lawrence, that is all we care about. I hope we find some more opportunities to give them more money. Maybe we can find a way to give Compton some too, I'm sure he's feeling a little left out. He doesn't even have a golf course or sports park.
Posted 1 November 2017, 12:56 p.m.
Well there is no mechanism for studying the exact type of things you are seeking thanks to the NRA and our bought and paid for legislators, since we are forbidden from compiling statistics on those type of things.
Posted 1 November 2017, 8:45 a.m.
No, I just think it's funny how it's the obvious answer to stop/deter/minimize something in one instance, but isn't good enough to stop/deter/minimize something in another instance. I really don't care if people have guns. I just wish people would be more responsible with them. Just pointing out how people's ideologies really shape how they view things and can lead to quite the contradiction. It's totally reasonable in one instance, when it's things people are against, but not good enough/unnecessary in another when it comes to something one is for. I'd say it's much easier to ban an object (guns) and see some change, than try to ban an ideology (terrorism) based on geography and expect change. Good luck on that.
Posted 1 November 2017, 8:30 a.m.
So in this instance we can piecemeal enough legislation that will culminate into a terror-free Utopia, but we can't piecemeal enough legislation that will culminate into less gun violence? How is it the obvious answer in one scenario but not the other? A ban won't stop every terrorist, so why try?
Posted 1 November 2017, 8:16 a.m.
Wouldn't it be great if we could just change all legislation by posing a hypothetical question suggesting those who wanted the legislation didn't mean it to be used in its current form? Isn't that kind of what we do through elections anyways? If Brownback's reelection shows that Kansans approve of his measures, then surely the citizens not ousting the Supreme Court judges (even after all the dark money spent in an attempt to depose them), shows that we approve of their measures too, right?
Posted 30 October 2017, 3:59 p.m.
Developers have led us to believe that it is so cost prohibitive to build in this town that nary a building would be built without some sort of chip in from the public. We subsidize for-profit, luxury residential for crying out loud.
Posted 26 October 2017, 12:47 p.m.
Full LJWorld.com site
© 2018 LJWorld.com