Hon Rep. Luetkemeyer,
You are not seriously "Pro-Life" unless you have opened your home to foster children, or are actively on an adoption for children regardless of race, age, or disability. You're simply "Anti-Abortion", or "Anti-Choice". Furthermore, going so far as to intrude upon the decision a single woman makes concerning her own body, that is as broad and intrusive as government can get, which eliminates you from being a true "Conservative". You are simply attempting to place the moral obligations of your own choosing upon another by denying them a choice that is none of your business.
A 3rd District voter
No, there wasn't. I said as much waaay-way up in the top of this comment chain.
Does she have a history of practicing gender discrimination? I don't know. The only thing I've seen espoused along those lines was by J Clay/connor with no source cited, only an example given.
There's a reason you don't begin seeing many male teachers until "middle school"--simple primate family dynamics. It's as ingrained in your DNA as is a vast majority of people's fears of snakes and spiders.
Consider who a kid most likely cries for first when they're hurt or sick? Ah. Now you understand.
It's not a Lib/Fem agenda.
No prob. I am just tired of all the back-n-forth when the SCOTUS has settled the matter as a subject of intelligent debate or civilized discourse in any place outside a court of law. It takes up entirely too much bandwidth besides.
I'm not speaking for John, Sequoia. But I do have something as current as 2008 for you to read: District of Columbia v. Heller 544 USC 570 (2008)
To sum up; The Supreme Court, the highest law in the land held that it is the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. The decision includes reference to many historical precedents. Pretty sure that should cover your inquiry. Peruse at your leisure. You're arguing on the wrong side and with the wrong parties. Feel free to challenge the decision as you may.
There's no published full story on either the dog incident (it could have been menacing him, for example, and when was the last time anyone here has seen a pipe made of lead?) or the neighbors complaint of menacing. And he would've been perfectly within his rights to be irate about the unapproved speed-bump.
What you can infer from consistent reports is that he appeared to be an antisocial loner who didn't care for any government intrusion in his life. That doesn't automatically make him a psychopath. Paranoid or sociopathic maybe (I'm not qualified to diagnose), but I don't see enough info to categorize him as a wacko prior to the incident at present. Another thing you can infer is that he doesn't appear to have been liked by his neighbors or the community in general. None of these seem to demonstrate an ironclad propensity for the bus incident prior to it happening.
Not disputing your opinion, just offering perspective upon what has been reported. The facts of the incident are fine. The rest is what amounts to hearsay.
Well, she may not have known it as it could have been in his pocket or backpack. Should every parent be expected to give their pre-pubescent kid a pat-down and riffling before they go anywhere? Secondly, if you expect sound judgment from a 9yr-old on the perspectives of adults, then lower the age for when someone is considered an adult--voting, drinking, driving, all of it.
This was a child. It was a toy. Nobody was hurt or injured, no one was in any danger. That makes it child's play. When the child does something wrong (or maybe in this case simply inappropriate) do you automatically go all Sheriff Joe on them? No. You correct and explain, at the worst you admonish. You can punish on a repeat.
Mining and milling are never risk free. I can think of no practice, process or occupation that is. The best that can be done is to minimize risk, and have unfettered authority granted to environmental agencies for oversight and compliance action, and that permit fees should be such to make necessary protective action a zero-sum to the taxpayers. Kicking-out and barring any political entity from interference that would delay any compliance action must absolutely be assured.
Aside from catastrophic failure due to a natural disaster, compliance with regulations should be no less than 100%, and any necessary measures for containment, clean-up, corrective action, liability and restitution would necessarily the sole obligation of the permittee.
That's what's called "the cost of doing business". If you're honest, keep your promises, and are a "good neighbor", none of the above should be of any concern to the mining company; they shouldn't need to be given an inch, and should they ask for one, it would mean their intentions were less than honorable or their trustworthiness questionable.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
Kurty boy? You undermine my confidence in the legislature just by being there. How are things going with Lathrop & Gage? How's old Davey Shorr, you guys still tight?
You are talking kettle to pot.
Last login: Monday, July 1, 2013
Copyright © 2015, CMNI.
All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Central Missouri Newspapers Inc.
Material from the Associated Press is Copyright © 2010, Associated
Press and may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall
not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or
redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP
materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for
personal and noncommercial use. The AP will not be held liable for any
delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the
transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages
arising from any of the foregoing. All rights reserved.
© 2015 News Tribune Publishing.