Partly Cloudy and Breezy, 56.0°
Log in ·
There are always some feeble-minded N.R.A. (or Russian ?) tools who argue that gun-laws are pointless, because shooters will always find a way to enact violence by whatever means is available.
What they don't (choose to) "get" is that sane gun-laws are a way of controlling the "means" of military-grade firearms available to wannabe shooters.
They also fail to get that their rationale is an argument against law itself...since people are just going to steal, speed, murder, and beat their spouses anyway.
Posted 17 February 2018, 9:40 p.m.
And of course, Clara, your like-minded friends too are always welcomed to give evidence why characterizing Kobach as a "sleazeball" is NOT true, and why his political machinations are NOT "illogical" and "draconian."
Posted 17 February 2018, 9:25 p.m.
N.P.R. yesterday interviewed Cameron Kaskey, a junior who survived the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
After asking about his on-site experience that day, the interviewer asked about the essay he'd published in response ("My Generation Won't Stand For This"), and he summarized his very articulate and angry view of N.R.A.-catspaw politicians and their followers stifling honest debate about gun-policy in America.
Mr. Kaskey's reply was spot-on when the interviewer asked what he'd say to the argument "...don't politicize this; it's too soon," which we hear after every mass-killing ?
"It's too late. It's too late. It's never too soon. The second this happened, it became too late. And to those who say we can't politicize this, they don't understand that if we don't politicize it, no action is going to come from this. We need to start moving now. And as much as we love thoughts and prayers, we don't need them from our lawmakers. We need action, and we demand it. And we're going to get it." (https://www.npr.org/2018/02/16/586616...)
Posted 17 February 2018, 4:42 p.m.
Here you go, Clara: Andrew was kind enough to provide an example of what "name-calling" looks like. You can compare and contrast with what you thought was "name-calling" in my above comment.
Posted 17 February 2018, 3:43 p.m.
OK, if you paid in-state tuition you paid the same as in-state "illegal" students.
If you paid MORE than in-state "illegal" students, it was presumably because you were an out-of-state student.
Where's there financial unfairness to you (or anybody else who went to K.U.) what "illegal" in-state students pay ?
Or are you saying the "in-state" / "out-of-state" difference is unfair: in which case, your argument has nothing to do with a difference between "illegal" students and other students at all, does it ?
Posted 17 February 2018, 3:06 p.m.
Hardly "name-calling," Clara. I stated very clearly why I characterized as "...illogical, unworkable, draconian, unfair" the position you, Charles, and Brock advocate.
If you think any of my reasons for doing so was invalid, I'm willing to hear your reasons why it's not so.
I called Kobach "...a political sleazeball" because he is. If you believe he's not, again, I'd be interested in your reasons for believing he's not.
I said Kobach's purposes are "despicable" because any politician, of any ideology, who uses a public office to serve his own interests, rather than the public interest, does harm to the public, and perverts our political system. That's despicable. If you believe otherwise, I'd be glad to hear and consider your reasons for the contrary viewpoint.
I characterized the "conservative" position you, Charles, and Brock advocate as "robotic" because it's the always-predictable "conservative" response that evidences ideological lock-step, more than personal thought, in its "opinion." If you coincidentally came to the "conservative" position by your own honest personal thinking about the matter, I don't characterize your advocacy of it as "robotic." And in that case I'd urge you more than ever to give honest personal thought to the reasons I consider the "conservative" position wrong and vicious.
I had hoped it was clear my purpose was not "name-calling," when I asked you, Charles, and Brock, "why would any honest, thoughtful, fair person" advocate the "conservative position." Obviously I was addressing all of you as "honest, thoughtful, fair" people, since the question only makes sense if asked of those people themselves.
"Do you think it is fair that I paid full tuition and illegals are granted in-state tuition?"
By "full tuition," do you mean you paid MORE than the in-state tuition "illegal" students paid ? If so, was it because you were not an "in-state" student ? That's how the tuition system of Kansas' state university's are set up, isn't it: that in-state students pay less ? Do you consider that unfair ?
If you paid in-state tuition, you paid the same as in-state "illegal" students, didn't you ? So your argument really doesn't rest at all on how much you paid as compared to how much they paid. If you and they paid the same in-state cost, again, that's how the tuition system is set up. In which case, what's the point of your argument on cost...?
Posted 17 February 2018, 12:11 p.m.
There's some truth in your last sentence, Scott, if by "globalists," you mean "business interests which market their products internationally." Every employer is looking for the cheapest possible labor, in order to increase his profits, even if it means breaking the law by hiring illegals. Should we also jail international business-leaders as law-breakers ?
Of course, many farmers are also employers involved in international markets. I doubt any of us would find it wise, or fair, to jail a bunch of Kansas farmers for breaking what is actually pretty much an administrative, rather than a criminal, law...as is the law illegals break.
But I'm not convinced there's any truth in the assertion "...the left wanted voters." Kris Kobach himself has done a lot to disprove that claim. If he was rigorous in his 7-year search for "illegals" voting in Kansas (and he presumably was, since it served his political purposes), he was unable to apprehend a single "illegal" who voted anywhere in Kansas.
If there are thousands of illegals voting in Kansas, as Kobach claims, and he couldn't catch a single one, Kobach is totally incompetent. The alternative is that Kobach lied about thousands of illegals voting in Kansas. That seems what his record of apprehensions proves.
Whichever he is, incompetent or liar, it seems most competent and honest voters would consider Kobach unfit to hold the office he currently does, much less be governor. It therefore seems unwise to follow Kobach' lead in repealing the law this story is about.
But most of all, the assertion that "...the left wanted voters" seems false because it would mean "the left" believes Kobach's lie that there thousands of "illegals" voting in Kansas, whom they could use for their purposes. "The right" may believe Kobach' lies: do you REALLY believe "the left" does ?
Posted 17 February 2018, 10:52 a.m.
Questions on the table please, Charles, Brock and Clara:
"If the robotic 'conservative' position is illogical, unworkable, draconian, unfair...and foisted on us by a political sleazeball for his own despicable purposes to harm Kansans (becoming governor)...how is it the right position...?"
"Why would any honest, thoughtful, fair person advocate a position entirely contrary to their personal nature, and what they believe is right..."
I'll be waiting to hear your answers. Thanks.
Posted 16 February 2018, 9:02 p.m.
This vanity plate is actually probably a good idea.
I haven't consulted the statutes, but I bet it's illegal to require belligerent libertarians (especially the "2nd Amendment rights" crowd) be branded across their forehead with some identifying words of warning. Since that's out, it's probably not worth speculating what those words should be.
But this vanity plate could be a good way to persuade armed libertarians they WANT to provide the rest of us an identifying warning.
At least we'd be warned that frowning at an incompetent driver with these plates could be risking our lives. Or that accidentally stepping on the grass where a car bearing these plates was parked might result in gunfire from a home-owner "protecting his property."
Posted 16 February 2018, 1:44 p.m.
"It doesn’t seem common sense and fair to me. I do not want tax dollars to provide any benefits to illegal aliens - period."
Like I say, there's a need here (and on all public questions) to think more, and more honestly, than the "conservative" cult's robotic position that you advocate.
Can (and should) "illegals" be prohibited from all benefits our taxes pay for: driving on "our" streets, going to "our" parks, using "our" water-system, getting mail through "our" postal system, using phone-service through "our" common-carriers ? Obviously the meat-ax "conservative" position is illogical and unworkable.
If "illegals" themselves pay taxes: as many do (some from more than 1 job); is it logical or fair to prohibit them using those benefits paid for by their taxes, as well as ours...or to prohibit their kids from going to "our" schools ?
If the robotic "conservative" position is illogical, unworkable, draconian, unfair...and foisted on us by a political sleazeball for his own despicable purposes to harm Kansans (becoming governor)...how is it the right position (not to be confused with the "right" position) ?
Why would any honest, thoughtful, fair person advocate a position entirely contrary to their personal nature, and what they believe is right...unless they care more that it's a "right" position ?
Posted 16 February 2018, 1:05 p.m.
Full LJWorld.com site
© 2018 LJWorld.com