Recent Comments

1. about 9 years ago on Clay Bennett

   Why just this “sin”? What about someone who is an adulterer or thief? These are part of the top 10 list. This is why what the law allows is biased and unfair.

2. almost 10 years ago on Clay Bennett

   Having worked as a health insurance actuary, I would like to take this opportunity to give Hobby Lobby the advance notice that their insurance rates will be going up. It costs a lot more to pay for maternity care than for contraceptives. Group health insurance rates are the same for each employee — male or female. Same goes for spouse and family coverage. This spreads the costs out, but means those who don’t need maternity coverage help pay for those who do. Maternity coverage will raise the insurance cost per employee. Hobby Lobby contributes to the cost of their employees’ insurance. This will increase their contributions. Which of course, they will pass on to their shoppers.

3. almost 10 years ago on Rob Rogers

   Golden State is an NBA team, not NFL. We have the MBL St Louis Cardinals and the NFL Arizona Cardinals. Yes, they both used to be in Saint Louis, but they are different sports.

4. almost 10 years ago on Mike Luckovich

   @mextea – Where do you get that law-abiding citizens save others? I’ve never heard any number associated with that claim.

5. over 10 years ago on Rob Rogers

   I support the 2nd Amendment. However, I don’t believe anyone outside of military & law enforcement should have fully automated high round rifles. Extremists say if we start banning these types of weapons it’s a slippery slope towards total gun bans. But I say allowing these weapons is a slippery slope in the other direction, allowing anyone to have rocket launchers, flame throwers, guided missles, etc. Gun ownership comes with responsibility — which I believe most gun owners have — but there are too many who won’t be reasonable. That is why “well-regulated” is also in the 2nd Amendment.

6. about 11 years ago on Rob Rogers

   Bush Sr sent troops to Kuwait because of a treaty we had with the country to help protect them. Iraq invaded so we helped as promised. We did not need to invade Iraq because the Iraqis withdrew from Kuwait. A few years later when the Iraqi Army lined up at the border to invade Kuwait again, Clinton lined up some tanks and aircraft in Kuwait and made sure they understood that the US would protect Kuwait again, if needed. Again, Iraq backed down. Iraq backed down on WMD and nuclear program. They backed down every time there was a show of force. Iraq did not committ 9/11. Yes, they may have agreed, but so did other Arab nations and we didn’t invade anyone else. All the soldiers sent into Iraq could have gone to Afghanistan instead, after all they were the ones who carried out 9/11 attacks. And we could have caught Bin Laden years sooner. But Bush Jr had a point to prove. He was asked in a press conference just before the invasion if his actions were due to a personal issue with Saddam and Bush Jr said yes it’s personal when someone threatens to kill your daddy.

7. about 11 years ago on Rob Rogers

   @disgustedtaxpayer – It is also very likely the planes would have still crashed due to explosive decompression when a gun went off and shot out a window. This could easily happen in a struggle or just bad aim.

8. about 11 years ago on Rob Rogers

   @HOWGOZIT – I think smaller airports will have fewer delays because their security check-ins are not as long as major airports. Think what will happen in 10 lines are dropped to 8 at Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, LA, NY.

9. about 11 years ago on Henry Payne

   We had numerous and reliable intelligence reports at the time saying there were no WMDs in Iraq. They either weren’t given to the President or he chose to ignore them. Either way, the Bush Administration started that war for other reasons. We should have had the troops that were sent to Iraq push through Afghanistan to get Bin Laden years before it actually happened. Then we would have been out of the area for a while now.

10. about 11 years ago on Chip Bok

    We have not had a full budget signed into law since Fiscal Year 1997 (Oct 1996-Sep 1997). We have operated on continuing resolutions and specific spending bills for over 15 years. So this is nothing new. The biggest problem with our Federal budget proces is the President doesn’t have the line-item veto. Then pork can be cut out. But Congress doesn’t want that because that is how they get reelected. If the President could veto single budget lines, Congress could still override with a 2/3 majority vote — just like any other veto. This is the way most states do it. Time to amend the constitution and allow line-item veto on budget bills.