Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Letter: Advertisement was inappropriate

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 12:00 am

On June 12, your newspaper ran an ad (upper right hand corner) advertising a gun shop.

I strongly feel that was wrong!

With all the violence, especially in the schools, why would you do that?

Let’s protect our children, not entice someone to buy guns with the help of a fine, family newspaper.

Helen Sagers

Lodi

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

166 comments:

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:23 pm on Fri, Jul 18, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Please provide 1 example of something I have posted that isn't true and/or substantiated.

    YOU CAN'T! [angry]

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 4:35 pm on Fri, Jul 18, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1363

    Mr. Barrow AND Mr. Birch didn't need to "investigate" or "research" the content of any post by andrew. His history shows a repeated pattern of copying posts (well, really every post) from conspiracy websites that most of the adults here have already looked into. These post information that is flat out false, or implies an event did or did not happen and that the event was guided by mysterious government employees, all of whom remain tight lipped over decades about their involvement.

    Citing an event that has been picked up by a legitimate news service doesn't mean that they believe the information contained there-in is true or factual, they are just passing it on, usually to fill holes in the paper. They should leave the whole there and dump the conspiracy information. I'm sure much of it is comic relief.

    Most of the participants here are aware of andrew's pattern of continual deceit. Every post he copies and pastes here falls under rule #4:
    Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything.

    Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could

    harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 6:30 pm on Thu, Jul 17, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1363

    [thumbup]

    Conservatives never fail to show their true colors early.

    The problem is, it's the same old pallet of discredited and mindless verbage.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:58 pm on Thu, Jul 17, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1111

    Five thumbs up!!

    [thumbup][thumbup][thumbup][thumbup][thumbup]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 1:48 pm on Thu, Jul 17, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Mr. Barrow was "offended" by a post on a topic he obviously hasn't spent 5 minutes researching or investigating.

    How can his concern be legitimate?[lol]

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 12:13 pm on Thu, Jul 17, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    MR Kinderman
    Please don't do anything you are "loath" to do. I really doubt you can teach me anything. And since in this whole issue you have shown yourself to be nothing more than a partisan hack I'm sure you have little to offer in remedial teaching. How dare you?

    What started as an "apparent" legitimate concern about posting here has now been reduced to a tantrum to bully your retaliation for your perceived slight. it was a LIBERAL who made the complaint and the LNS didn't go your way. You have seriously reduced yourself here to a person with little credibility.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:06 am on Thu, Jul 17, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    Is this really a serious question, Mr. Heuer: "I'm sure your devotion to the rule of law means you agree with every supreme court decision (sic) ever handed down."

    If it is, then we don't have much more to discuss as I am loathe to teach you some concepts that should have been learned in junior high school. But I'll give it a go anyway. Of course I don't "agree" with every Supreme Court decision - do you? My adherence to the "rule of law" has nothing to do with agreement. Roe v. Wade is a perfect example. Without any doubt whatsoever I believe that decision to be the worst ever handed down by the Court. Fifty-five-plus million unborn children slaughtered at the hands of abortionists all under the guise of "a woman's right to choose." Of course because it is the "law of the land" by virtue of their decision, there's nothing much I can do about it - except to attempt to have it changed.

    The same is true for same-sex marriage. According to my faith, I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Yet I don't care if every state passes laws that would legalize same-sex marriage - just as I oppose abortion on demand, I also believe anything other than marriage between one man and one woman to be wrong. It is within my rights to continue to voice that opinion and to do whatever I can legally to get it changed.

    Understand, Mr. Heuer?

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 12:11 am on Sun, Jul 13, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    If you were to pay attention I said "in my humble opinion" these are the rules I believe were violated, #4, #5 & #6. No rules were cited which is MR Kindermans bone of contention.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:39 am on Sat, Jul 12, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    A violation of Rules #4, #5 & #6 was not the reason cited.[sleeping]

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 12:44 am on Sat, Jul 12, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    Thank you Mr Kaur

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 12:33 am on Sat, Jul 12, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    MR Kinderman
    To your 12:04 pm on Fri, Jul 11, 2014 post so very far down the page.

    I really believe your protest amounts to "a tempest in a tea pot."
    Again you are out of proportion here. I mean "rule of law" might suggest more authority to the guidelines or "rules of conduct" than there is. I'm sure your devotion to the rule of law means you agree with every supreme court decison ever handed down. Careful you are on record here. Actually the whole point of law is fairness.

    As I said rules #4, #5 & #6 were violated and again that is my humble opinion you can take it for whatever it's worth. However I am aware you have little regard for my opinion or we wouldn't be continuing this discussion. That being said I just can't wrap my head around your use of the words "rule of law" even if you are trying to use it in analogy. The games of baseball, football, basketball even soccer have rules of participation but its hard to refer to them as "rule of law."

    It was not "someone" that found the video offensive, several have found the video in bad taste. But the bigger point is the LNS staff (remember the owners and staff of the paper) decided it was not appropriate and violated one or more unnamed rules which I tried to guess (after having seen the 2 videos) they probably violated. This is not Andrews single bad posting he's crossed the line before and has had some deleted and others not. LNS must be very tolerant so I ignore him mostly.

    You stated "first, I never suggested that anyone has to get my approval for anything." yet repeated postings directed at LNS staff suggest you are demanding some accountability and the official tally of whatever rules were used to make any determination. Now may I simply offer that merely repeating you demands doesn't add weight or raising rules (guidlines) to "rules of law" isn't expanding your argument to "certiorari" levels. The guidlines as you must surely have noted are not written in legalese as a law would. They are very general to give the lay person an idea of what is expected here. However as in any business No shirt, No shoes, No service can be clear but would a very short mid-riff T-shirt be OK (male or female)? Are flip flops OK? Or can the shoes be removed after you sit down? Is a see through shirt (male or female) Ok? It is ultimately the business owners decision what to allow or not allow unless there is an ordinance, governmental regulation or law (I mean legislated law) that takes precedence over the business owners rules. Aside from that the owner can decide whatever is in the best interest of his business and doesn't have to say why that see through T-shirt is not acceptable. I never have seen you get upset over any other deleted posts whether removed inexplicably or unexpectedly. Oh and yes I have read your arguments and seemingly several times now.

    Your Turner Road story is very, shall I say, out there. Again you are comparing the rules of conduct to the vehicle and municipal codes (regulation based on law). Your ticket however is not out of the realm of possibilities, but the fact you go to court really exceeds the comparative reality of what we experience in this forum. There isn't any arbitration which you seem to be advocating for but really wouldn't that be a little silly and unreasonable?

    Your analogy should have stopped with the policeman. Bringing in the red car, well thats when your feet left terra firma. I understand the analogy you were trying reach for (arbitrariness) but it's hard to equate it here in this instance. Now if you think for a minute the $100 fine does change the stakes beyond mere defense of principle into a pocket book issue. If you were fined for bad posts it would totally raise the level of protest and we would seriously nit-pic the rules and the referee to avoid the fine. Then LNS woud find a need to hire legal advice to better define their rules into legalese.

    For instance:
    If Poster places comments that deviate (referred to as "off topic", rule #6) from the Letter to the Editor (herein after referred to as the LTE) being commented on the post will be removed. One or more further violations will result in a ban for a minimum of 2 weeks but not to exceed 30 days. However if the "off topic" is merely a clarification of the original comments or analogous to the original comments then it will stand and be allowed.
    If any comment should receive three or more "Report" link activations the LNS reviewer will review the post in question and make their determination based on;
    1. Review of the post for unacceptable content based on the bylaws of the Lodi News Sentinal (herein After refered to as the LNS)
    2 Review any posts presented by the posters "reporting" the questioned post to determine validity (they are sincere and not "vandalistic" or unrealistically sensitive (over what may be expected in the general readership public)
    3....
    Well I think you can get my point. And here is where we get more regulations for conservatives to complain about. This is the experience I've had with the number of work place coffee rooms where it starts out this is where you get coffee to signs going up "Your mother doesn't work here", "if you take the last cup, do your duty for the next person" or "please check if its your turn to (buy coffee, coffee supplies, make AM coffee, turn the coffee pot off and clean room at days end, BTW remove your garbage from the refrigerator, all as the continueing stages of legislating coffee room behavior. I'm retired but I'm told things haven't changed much.

    I know what you are trying to say which is essentially if a single person doesn't like a post from another he can complain and have it removed regardless of the merits of the post. If you were to have one of my posts removed because you disagreed with it or you reacted overly sensitive to it would I be upset? And my answer would be yes. Would I protest, yes? However I don't feel thats the way it works here. I have complained about posts here and they remained for whatever reason. The comment was not deemed to be out of line maybe because it was considered a valid point, no one else complained or it was considered helpful in stimulating further dialogue. Who knows. However if some one complains and Mr Birch checks it out and finds it as not being in the best interest of the paper it doesn't matter if only one complained or twenty complained. The arbitor, Mr Birch, knowing the rules of the paper decided it was not acceptable. Now like I say the rules are general enough you can easily find a rule to apply. I mean I picked 3 but is that really so necessary when its your paper. So to say it is arbitrary, ideological or abusing his power really exaggerates what happens here. I mean liberals complain the decisions favor conservatives and conservatives say liberals get away with everything. Sometimes you can get that impression but over time I've come to believe the LNS is doing what it needs to do to sell papers. To exclude any group is not in the best interest of a business especially if it is struggling. Just like the letter Do you pick and choose which letters to the editor to publish? posted: Thursday, July 10, 2014 12:48 am. LNS staff, in the paper version stated they post all letters regardless. And I believe that to be true.

    So MR Kinderman just how far do you want to take this. You've made your protest and I'm sure it has been duly noted as evident of the poll being requested on the issue. I'm sure when I protested it was duly noted. Will you allow LNS the last word or is this going to be a federal case for you. You must feel pretty special getting a poll over whether to put back a post that was deleted. No body did that for me or Ms Bobin or Mr Baxter, or Mr Doctor. I would assume there was no law in your favor but you may have influence at the LNS office and got an audience with management and presented your grievance. I really would like to have witnessed your reception when you cited what you feel is an infraction of the "rule of law" in the online comment section of the editorial page.

    BTW my "If I can't yell fire in a theater" (or my posts are not allowed) and I really want to yell fire (post my thoughts) "I can become a fireman" where it's OK to yell fire (post where my thoughts are accepted). I never alluded it was my best work.

     
  • Jien Kaur posted at 2:33 pm on Fri, Jul 11, 2014.

    Jien Kaur Posts: 92

    Mr. Huer: Please see the headline on the home page from the editor advertising for opinions about whether the Andrew Liebich comments about not dead chilrdren should be restored. The Mr. Kinderman complaints are sited in this messege from editor.

    Perhaps your very valid ideas may listened to by editor there.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 12:25 pm on Fri, Jul 11, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    I'm afraid this page is no longer being visited. So I may be posting to no one but myself and Mr Birch. However MR Kinderman made several remarks earlier of unfairness and I am at a loss as to understand his motives. I remarked earlier:

    Andrew violated rules #4, #5 & #6 (in my humble opinion which has little value to you I'm sure). This is not ideological or personal its decency.

    MR Kinderman I fail to understand your protest.
    No one at LNS has to get your approval as to what they, the owners and staff, decide to do at their place of business. Are you part owner and have some controlling interests other than patron?

    Its as if you are pursuing a palace revolution here and frustrated you aren't getting the pitch fork crowd you feel you need (other than Andrew). I'm really surprised you don't have access to the videos or failed to Google the topics. Of course for a fee I would gladly provide you the links.

    In the final analysis where in the world have you gotten any idea life is fair?

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 12:04 pm on Fri, Jul 11, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    Mr. Heuer - first, I never suggested that anyone has to get my approval for anything. It also has nothing really to do with fairness. What it does have to do with is (to a lesser extent) the rule of law.

    Here we have eight posted Rules of Conduct which we are to follow if we expect to use the LNS's forum. These are the "law."

    Mr. Liebich posts a comment which includes a link to a Youtube video that someone finds offensive. He complains to the arbiter of the law (that would be Simon Birch) that he thinks Mr. Liebich's post should be removed for no other reason than it is offensive to him. After consideration, Mr. Birch agrees and summarily removes Mr. Liebich's post not for any violation of the law, but simply because he doesn't like it either.

    I think by now not only should you have understood my position (had you read any of my arguments), or you simply agree that Mr. Liebich's post should have been removed for the reasons stated by Mr. Birch.

    So today, Mr. Heuer you're driving down Turner Road toward Lower Sac. For those of us who travel that piece of road on a regular basis, we know that the speed limit changes from place to place. But in the 40 MPH zone you observe your odometer and it plainly indicates that you are traveling at exactly 40 MPH. But lo and behold, one of Lodi's Finest is flashing his blue lights in your rear view mirror and like any good citizen you immediately pull over, provide your license, registration and proof of insurance. Also, your seatbelt has been properly in place since you started driving today.

    The weather today is fair without a hint of rain or anything else that would change the conditions on Turner Road. Traffic is nominal as it is 2:00 p.m.; there are also no traffic accidents or other incidents that you can see around you.

    The police officer then informs you that he intends to ticket you for going 40 MPH. You politely let him know that not only is that true, but as far as you can tell the speed limit is 40 MPH in that area. The officer gives no other reason for the citation which you obediently sign not as an admission of guilt, but that you will either pay the $100.00 fine or contest it in court.

    Naturally you're not happy Mr. Heuer. After all, who is this police office to summarily change the law. As such, you plan to contest it in court. Prior to going to court you take pictures of the speed limit signs that support your contention that you were breaking no laws; you keep a copy of the next day's LNS that has a short story supporting your other claims that the weather was beautiful and that there were no accidents or other incidents along that stretch of Turner Road where the speed limit is 40 MPH.

    When your case is called in court you step up calmly; you're dressed well and you are not wearing a hat (something really frowned upon in any courtroom). The police officer's story isn't all that different from yours - he says that you were going 40 MPH and in fact the speed limit on Turner Road where you were traveling was and still is 40 MPH. But he simply felt like you deserved to be ticketed that day because he didn't like the color of your car, which was red.

    Fully expecting the Judge to toss out this frivolous and wholly unwarranted ticket, he thinks about it for awhile, asks if indeed your car is red, to which you agree that it is. And then his gavel comes down in support of the police officer. Case closed - you have to pay $100.00. You're incensed - just as you have every right to be!

    This isn't the way things are supposed to work, are they Mr. Heuer? This forum's rules are supposed to be the guiding law on our behavior here. Many other forums like this have no rules at all - they would scoff at the eight that we are expected to follow.

    But this time Mr. Birch has used his power irresponsibly. Agree or not with what Mr. Liebich posted; like or dislike the Youtube video he provided the link to follow - Mr. Birch violated his own rules simply because he agreed with someone else that it was offensive.

    So again, Mr. Heuer (ad nauseum), what will you do WHEN this happens to you? Are you going to tell me that if Mr. Birch or anyone else at the LNS decides to remove your opinion or thoughts for no violation of the rules but only because I (Jerome Kinderman) doesn't like what you've offered, you're going to go along whistling a merry tune and just take it lying down? I don't think so, Mr. Heuer - and you shouldn't have to.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 7:09 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    Rules #4, #5 & #6 were violated (in my opinion which has little value To you I'm sure). This is not ideological or personal its decency.

    MR Kinderman I fail to understand your protest.
    No one at LNS has to get your approval as to what they, the owners and staff, decide to do at their place of business. Are you part owner and have some controlling interests other than patron?

    Its as if you are pursuing a palace revolution here and frustrated you aren't getting the pitch fork crowd you feel you need (other than Andrew). I'm really surprised you don't have access to the videos or failed to Google the topics. Of course for a fee I would gladly provide you the links.

    Where in the world have you gotten any idea life is fair?

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 6:47 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    How many soldiers die with reporters around them?


    How many soldiers die surrounded by reporters or emergency technicians?
    What part of shot, lying on the ground or blown to pieces and not breathing fails to reach your level of "official." Notifying next of kin?

    This was after all an analogy.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 6:35 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    #4, #5 & #6

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 3:14 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 314

    Oh, Mr Kinderman, it isn't a matter of the tide turning, it ebbs and flows just as it always has throughout all of history. You can have religious rights and gay rights, really you can. Throughout our history, we've had rights conflicting with other rights and our courts have settled the issues with the Constitution as their guide. Our system works, and it will continue to do so. We are a nation of laws, not of emotions, and our freedoms are still valued, our rights are still protected. I am sorry that you worry so much about this. I really don't think anyone is going to lose their freedom of religion in our country.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:57 am on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    Ms. Welch, with the tide turning against religious rights and in favor of homosexual rights very soon it will be considered "hateful" to even suggest that marriage should be between one man and one woman - as my religious text, The Holy Bible insists. It will then move into the category of "hate speech," as we all should know can garner the offender some harsh penalties.

    Freedom of Speech used to be valued; but no longer. Simply being in the minority and feeling offended by what someone might say is considered hateful. Are we really attempting to eradicate one of the emotions which ALL human beings possess? This, of course, is one of the most stupid ideas I've ever heard of.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 10:22 pm on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 314

    Bring it on! Another Reynolds case, some 100+ years later. I would never deny a polygamist their right to challenge the law again. As long as we're not talking about child marriage who am I to judge? Actually, it might be rather interesting to see what a modern court thinks about the issue.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 10:13 pm on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 314

    Well, when there's over a hundred posts going in a million different directions, it's a confusing system to me. Nonetheless, I will show you the respect of having this discussion with you as you see fit.

    I checked out your article. I can sort of see the point they're trying to make, but it's hard to get past references like "the gay fascist movement" and all the fear-mongering. Still, I am not one to think that churches should be forced to perform any ceremonies contrary to their basic tenets, so I read on. The article discusses Denmark's new law that forces churches to perform same sex marriages as an example of the loss of religious freedom and talks about a pending lawsuit in England that is trying to do away with religious freedom there as well. According to you, this is where we're headed. I disagree.

    First, there isn't freedom of religion in Denmark as we know it to be. Lutheranism is their official state religion and it was the Church of Denmark that made the requirement. In America, I think our clear separation of church and state would prevent that. As for England, they currently have an opt-out policy, so churches aren't being forced. Yes, there is a lawsuit pending. But why not wait and see the outcome instead of living in conjecture? I see that you are convinced that in the future this will happen in the US. I do not think so. I think both the rights of gay marriage and the right of churches can be protected. And I think they should be.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 9:26 pm on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Great job substantiating my July 8, 10:15 am post Mike.[lol]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:56 pm on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    My post did not violate any of the stated Rules of Conduct.[sleeping]

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 7:52 pm on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    The ad on Tuesday of this week wasn't really that small (I don't know if it appeared in today's paper as I didn't get my copy). In fact, it was placed to the right of the masthead and was 3.5" wide by 1.75" high. It included some orange color as well. I'm quite sure that an ad placed in that position at that size with color cost Lodi Guns quite a bit of their advertising budget.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 5:47 pm on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1363

    What I choose to do with and about those who may have slighted me is my business, not yours.

    That's how some of us with the "liberal mindset" just are, while those with the more unhappy conservative affliction only come out on the side of other conservatives (even if they aren't in the traditional "left/right paradigm".

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 3:59 pm on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    Andrew
    Please note I just returned from a week in Washington state (great fireworks) and upon return I caught up on emails and social medias before opening my online LNS. After reading about one of your comments being deleted I at first said well whats new? You've had many comments deleted. I've had things deleted, Mr Baxter, Mr Doctor, Ms Bobin have had things deleted even the Great Wa (Walter Chang) has had his share of deletions. Seems there is some sensitivity to comments about old angry white men. Being old, white and sometimes grumpy myself I find it humorous. I did raise my voice about Walters deletions. I really enjoy his posts.

    There have been some serious vulgarities (sausage packe peanut butter ala Mr Doctor) and vicious comments by others that when allowed and left unchecked becomes destructive even slanderous. I have learned there is a good reason for deletions even if not fully acceptable. This does seem to be an equal oppportunity arena for offense and deletions. However that being said who told anybody here life is fair.

    I made my comments to the current issue based on my experience with deletions and familiarity wth your past posts which are consistently insulting and demeaning of others. This says nothing about the information you post which is a matter of opinion. Now the LTE opinion section has nothing to do with journalism but we live in a glorious country where we can say what we want and if we are not allowed in one arena we can go somewhere else because the government is not going to stop you (thats the 1st ammendment). I make comments in a number of places and if occasionally something is deleted well I'm free to start my own news paper. However that would be a daunting task even for the experts these days so they have my sympathies.

    Now I made my comment at 8:25 pm on Mon, Jul 7, 2014. Since that posting I did go back and found the video links (please note the "Watch This Discussion" button which I pushed before I left). Yes there it was in my inbox. I followed both your links and I agree it reached the level of repugnant. This is not offensive like saying all dems/repubs are dumb, or Obama is a muslim, or a Kenyan, or reminding people he has Husein as his middle name which is a shoulder-shrug offenssive if not "consider the source" offensive. No this is painful. The event (Sandyhook) was very painful as was the 9/11 attack. I still have a hard time with the annual rememberace of the attack since the memories are still haunting. For people connected to the Malaysian plane crash all suggestion that there could be hope when talk said the plane really landed in some jungle and they were all still alive. That is heart and gut wrenching. So my comment made at 1:54 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014, the next day, was after I found the videos but it was posted after the earlier posting as a reply to a reply to the earlier post. Its confusing I know. Sandyhook is another event that is hard to have to relive as we recently did. You were saying anyone who believed they were dead is a fool. As I said you are consistent with insulting and demeaning remarks but this was over the top.

    BTW I have been busy but I have seriously taken up your challenge to point out what is irrational with the 15 core beliefs of the Tea Party.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 2:56 pm on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    Ms. Welch - first, the reason that there's a "reply" button on each comment is to keep separate conversations/debates together and flowing. Prior to its institution, there was only one place to respond to anyone and that was at the top. I find the new system makes more sense.

    Now while I couldn't find an example of any church in the United States being forced to perform same-sex marriages, I am confident that's coming soon. For one thing, most churches take advantage of a tax-free environment through the IRS because they're not for profit. The challenge will come soon based upon that very IRS rule. It will be either perform the ceremonies, or lose your tax-free status. Especially in tough economic times like these, churches are finding the till less than full, therefore it's going to be a tough call.

    Nevertheless, since our laws have derived from England, perhaps you might find this interesting and at least on point: http://tinyurl.com/psycywf.

    Rest assured, the requirement that some incredibly beautiful church will be targeted by a same-sex couple desiring to be married in it. Based upon recent history and the fact that any form of litigation is costly, the church will lose.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 2:35 pm on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    And the State of California voted to make marriage between one man and one woman. That was shot down by the Supreme Court as I am sure you are aware. And since the Court failed to actually define what marriage should be (not that it was within their purview), I can naturally expect those who do support multiple partner unions to challenge those laws soon. And who would you be to deny them that "right?" And what would you base that denial upon, Ms. Welch - your feelings; your belief of right vs. wrong?

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 1:15 pm on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1363

    You continue to use the term "we" when referring to infowars even though you can not provide a scintilla of evidence that you are employed there. Never the less, I'll assume you work there (even though for some reason, you can't provide me any contact information to this very day)...
    so you = infowars.

    "Instead, you provided 2 headlines that aren't even attributable to us and certainly nothing that can be considered an "outright lie, rumor or innuendo." " (from your rebuttal above)... hhmm...so you are saying that these two headlines are for stories that are not true and you are attempting to distance yourself? Particularly the flag story makes it appear that mr. weirdo can't fly the American flag because the government won't let him. You leave out of the headline that it is not "a" government that won't let him fly the flag, its' an homeowners association. And he isn't flying the flag, he's using it for drapes. Your headline implies that government officials will not let him "fly" the flag...real government officials in the real government don't care what he is using the flag for as it has been ruled that desicrating the US flag is a form of free speech, hence your headline is an out right lie.

    I would like to get into your kookie 9/11 lies and oh, your favorite "vapor trails" are poisoning us, or side scan radar, but really, Simon's not going to let me go on and on for pages listing your lies and inuendo.

    Your problem is that if you see something in a headline posted on infowars or anyone of the thousands of other conspiracy web sites, you think it's true. And when it is pointed out, you start in with your you tube links, or linking to a respectable news organization that might have taken a casual interest in your latest goofy whims (btw: having a writer who works piecemeal for legitimate news organizations, does not qualify a story as true, also a legitimate news organization that mentions one of your wacky beliefs in a website separate from it's own website does not mean the editors of those legitimate outlets believe it to be true).

    It has been shown here, over and over again, the many times you have linked a misleading video that has been doctored or (I won't say quote since you don't quote) statements from real news organization that have had segments edited out that they fit your vision of the truth. Truth does not exist in your world (meaning, it does not exist on infowars or makesheep either). Your constant complaining and challenges instead of bolstering your point of view instead only paint your further and further into a corner. Your intellectual dishonesty colors any arguments or positions you make or take.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 12:27 pm on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 314

    I don't think we'll head down that slippery slope, Mr Kinderman. Marriage is about consent, so I think animals and children and inanimate objects are safe. And because bigamy is illegal, then polygamy can't exist either. I don't think gay marriage is going to open up any kind of deviant pandora's box.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 12:20 pm on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 314

    Took me forever to scroll down here, but thanks for the example. What phrase did you Google? I'd much rather take 10 seconds!

    Anyway, as to the article...I found it very interesting. It is a Colorado state law, so the baker could definitely try to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court. My guess is the state law is based on the idea and protection of nondiscrimination in public accommodations. I'd be more interested to see an example of a private church being forced to perform weddings against their will, like the Israel example you provided. But, if you do choose to continue this discussion, please post above so I don't have to scroll down for a mile... Thanks!

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 12:04 pm on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 314

    I appreciate your restraint [wink]

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 12:02 pm on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 314

    I agree. Ted is definitely among the "better angels of our nature" here.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:43 am on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    The Iraq analogy was absurd. How many individuals in the U.S. military have ever been declared officially legally dead within the first eight minutes of their death? None.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 10:38 am on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    It's happened to you as well, Mr. Adams? And you chose to just let it slide? That is a shame.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 10:35 am on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    You're very welcome.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:03 am on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Mike, I asked you to "provide 1 example of something we have reported that is "innuendo, rumor, or outright lies." You obviously can't.

    Instead, you provided 2 headlines that aren't even attributable to us and certainly nothing that can be considered an "outright lie, rumor or innuendo." Epic fail but let's go one by one shall we...

    1. ‘Smart’ Lightbulbs Reveal Wi-Fi Passwords

    "UK-based security firm Context released their findings this week after successfully obtaining Wi-Fi credentials from 30 meters away."

    We linked to Context's findings.
    http://contextis.com/blog/hacking-internet-connected-light-bulbs/

    "innuendo, rumor, or outright lies" as you claim Mike?

    No, just the truth. 'Smart" lightbulbs do in fact reveal Wi-Fi passwords as confirmed by UK-based security firm Context's findings.
    [sleeping]

    2. Hollywood Inserts Gun Control Subtext in New Planet of the Apes Movie

    Harvey Weinstein is directly quoted and a trailer of the movie is provided.

    "innuendo, rumor, or outright lies" as you claim Mike?

    No, just the truth. Harvey Weinstein has inserted a gun control subtext in the New Planet of the Apes movie just as he bragged he would.
    [sleeping]

    3. The Dogma of Drug Prohibition: Neither Your Life Nor Your Death Belongs to You

    The story of Benton Mackenzie wasn't written by us. The story was reported by William Norman Grigg of Information Liberation but did the story contain "innuendo, rumor, or outright lies" as you claim Mike?

    No, just the truth as reported by the Quad City Times a newspaper in Davenport, Iowa.
    [sleeping]
    http://qctimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/cancer-patient-if-i-m-found-guilty-i-m-a/article_f9f67af2-9cd5-5cf5-8008-d0220226750d.html

    4. California Man Says his American Flag is Not Allowed to be Displayed at his Home

    Again, not a story written by us. A story that directly quotes Steve Roberts and contains 2 ABC 10 News video clips.

    "innuendo, rumor, or outright lies" as you claim Mike?

    Certainly not.[sleeping]

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 10:01 am on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    Your Iraq analogy misses the point, Mr. Heuer. I never saw the video that Mr. Liebich referred to (as I've stated many times here) and I simply don't care what's in it. I never even saw his post that was removed. Was it and/or the video offensive? Maybe they are; maybe they aren't. But I'm certainly not going to take yours or Mr. Birch's word for it that it rises to the level that would have Mr. Liebich's post removed. After all, this is THE ONLY reason cited by Mr. Birch for the removal of his post.

    This comes down to fair play according to the rules, Mr. Heuer. IF Mr. Birch had found Mr. Liebich's post to be in violation of any of the posted rules, then he should have based his decision on that. Had he done that I can guarantee there would not be anywhere near 122 posts attributed to this LTE. Instead, he did not. He sided with someone's notion of what is offensive and agreed with him. It is my contention that once this becomes precedent, Mr. Birch can simply toss out comments simply because HE doesn't like them, or that other posts might go against his ideological grain. That simply isn't his job, Mr. Heuer. And I think he knows it.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:23 am on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    By the way Ms. Welch - since you assert that "same-sex marriage IS protected by the Constitution," what other forms of marriage will be deemed to be protected? Please be careful ma'am, as the combinations of who should be able to marry whom (or even what) are as wide and varied as the imagination could possibly imagine. Welcome to your "Brave New World!"

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:02 am on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    I'm still wondering what point Mr. Heuer is trying to make with his "If I can't yell fire in a theater I wil (sic) become a fireman" remark. I suppose it was either meant to be deep or shallow.

    And Ms. Welch - you "think" the Iraq soldier analogy "really" makes the point? Hmm. Almost makes me want to insert an emoticon. But I'll continue to resist.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 8:56 am on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    Mr. Heuer, it's often the "simple" letter that garners the appropriate amount of attention. Here we had the author complaining about an advertisement for the only "product" protected by the Constitution of the United States. I was actually pleased to see the ad in the very same position yesterday; sadly, for some strange reason my copy of the News-Sentinel didn't make it to my door today. Hmm, curious.

    As a result of something unrelated to her angst, but still on point, it morphed into a debate regarding the only "job" protected by the Constitution of the United States.

    Aside from my missing copy of the LNS, I find the others quite interesting and refreshing.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 8:45 am on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    Ms. Welch - I apologize for not responding sooner with an example, but I've been a tad busy arguing another matter above. However, in less than ten seconds I was able to find one through Google.com: http://tinyurl.com/p6flyyd.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 8:40 am on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1111

    "As someone with over 25 years of experience in the field of Journalism..."

    Andrew, how did you ever survive before the internet???

    [beam]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 8:35 am on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1111

    [thumbup]

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 8:22 am on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    Mr. Adams - once more, I never read Mr. Liebich's removed post. It had already been deleted by Mr. Birch. It was only after reading WHY Mr. Birch had it removed (simply because it offended someone) that I inserted my opinion directed mostly toward Mr. Birch, not even really toward the protestor. After all, he had every right to offer his opinion.

    This has nothing to do with conspiracy theorists or anything else. It has only to do with the purpose of this forum and how it's being moderated. If we can't rely upon the rules as stated to guide us in our arguments, but instead are at the whim of one single individual's sense of what is offensive and then ignores the rules but still removes another's thoughts, opinions, ideas or whatever it might be, then like I wrote earlier, just take this little comment forum down.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 10:04 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 314

    [thumbup] to Thomas! Your Iraq soldier analogy really makes the point, I think.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 7:37 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1363

    Mr. Kinderman is just throwing a tantrum because someone (well most probably) objected to a post that was an outright lie (Sandy Hook children alive and well, not dead), the offensive post was removed (quite rightly), and now like most conservatives, Mr. Kinderman insists in making it a "liberal" thing because he thinks the person who objected is a liberal. He also thinks I'm a liberal and that I have a "liberal mind-set" what ever that is, but it makes me complain apparently about posts from andrew which everyone knows here just copies and pastes the conspiratorial garbage that appears on the infowars website.

    So because I'm a liberal, according to Mr. Kinderman, I think only conservatives should be censored even though as (as you rightly claim) andrew is above the whole left/right paradigm. I don't think I've ever said anyone should be censored because of their opinion on affairs of the world, but I do take issue with anyone who attempts to pass off as their own, the work of others. Must be the teacher in me...we call it cheating, but the technical word is plagiarism. And because you're educated, one of the last things you would want to be known for was plagiarism.

    Please note that in the LNS, when they use articles from sources outside of their office, they attribute those articles to those that wrote them, or the service that generated them. Why do they do that?

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 7:17 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1363

    ""We..."

    So you don't work for Alex Jones now????"

    That is funny on so many levels.

    But here is a fun activity the whole family can do and it starts with this:
    "provide 1 example of something we have reported that is "innuendo, rumor, or outright lies." Which of the following is NOT an article on andrew's infowars?

    (part of me is embarrassed at how easy this is going to be)
    TODAY ON INFOWARS
    WE LEARN.....
    ‘Smart’ Lightbulbs Reveal Wi-Fi Passwords
    Hackers uncover yet another “Internet of things” vulnerability.

    Hollywood Inserts Gun Control Subtext in New Planet of the Apes Movie
    Entertainment part of brainwashing effort against 2nd Amendment

    The Dogma of Drug Prohibition: Neither Your Life Nor Your Death Belongs to You

    California Man Says his American Flag is Not Allowed to be Displayed at his Home (PLEASE NOTE: The man is using the flag as curtains, and his homeowners association won't let him do this)

    ANSWER: Trick question....they all can be found on today's infowars conspiracy web site.

    *Assuming andrew works for infowars as of this posting

    So andrew, which of these is an outright lie, rumor or innuendo?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:03 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Mr. Lauchland,
    Was my comment not one comment amongst many that can be considered offensive depending on your perspective? You are completely missing the point.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 6:32 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1363

    Oh, I've had it done to me as well.

    I think your difficulty with it is that you can't use your normal afflictions of agreeing with an offensive post because it isn't from a "liberal" and you either pretend that it is a legitimate post or (I hope this isn't the case..) you actually don't understand.

    You're too bright to just not know which means your welcoming opinion of an offensive post is deliberate because "liberals" and you can pretend to be offended. And you have to really stretch to think that a post which apparently implied that there were no child murders in Sandy Hook. This casts you in a whole new category of "conspiracy theorist".

    Welcome to the world where anything is news and anything that is news is true and anything that is true is the result of a massive government operation requiring the secrecy of up to 10's of thousands of co-conspirators.

    Hope it was worth it!

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 5:27 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1111

    "disturbingly so"

    Folks...

    I'm flabbergasted.

    I'm flummoxed.

    My hackels have risen.

    Could this be Jerry's last gasp???


    [scared]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:42 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1111

    "Whoosh"

    Pre lock down: tag teams.

    Capisce


    [smile]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:38 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1111

    "simply escalating hostilities..."

    Tom, you make that sound like a bad thing??

    I've never seen you misbehave here.

    You always take the high road here and have bend over backward to engage these "angry men" and their distorted view points in a friendly and civil manner.

    Delusion is at play here...

    [huh]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 2:51 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    You completely missed the point Mr. Lauchland. [rolleyes]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 2:45 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Walter,
    I am not the topic of this letter! Alex Jones is not the topic of this letter!
    [sleeping]

    If you wish to change the topic of this letter perhaps you should step up and provide 1 example of something we have reported that is "innuendo, rumor, or outright lies."

    YOU CAN'T! [angry]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 2:37 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    What happened to "I too have been out of town and I seem to have missed Andrews comment." [lol]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 2:10 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Jerome,
    As someone with over 25 years of experience in the field of Journalism, I would be remiss if I didn't strongly object to Mr. Birch's arbitrary censorship. Your comments in the matter have been appreciated. If I vanish from this forum let there be no doubt as to why...

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 2:09 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414


    I made a comment about 75 comments earlier not believing this short LTE would be the most responded to letter in awhile. However since so many side topics have entered the discussion it has grown. Let me repeat my earlier comment;
    Geez
    The letter merely states is it necessary to print the gun ad on the front page of a family newspaper. It didn't say not to print it on any page, it didn't say that guns should be outlawed (or even restricted), it didn't say anything against the 2nd amendment, it didn't say gun owners are bad people, yet the very topic of guns brings out the Pavlovian responses of gun paranoids in essence crying the "give me liberty or give me..." to "from my cold dead hands...". We even have one poster that decided to sum up all their past grievances in this forum as comment to this LTE.

    Its a simple letter that should have garnered little if any response. Of course its not necessary to front page the ad however the fact that it is is really inconsequential. I really don't think kids are going to see the ad (if they do see the ad) and make any life altering decisions over it. PS I did not see the ad but describing it as up in a corner suggests to me it was small. I grew up with guns and understand the responsible and sane ownership. I have no worries over my second amendment rights. And Obama is my president.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 1:54 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    I really wish you would have read my post before you started yelling here. I mean we are talking about Andrew. I mean the guy who professes to be above the left/right whatever. Yet you have decided to make this personal and throw conservative/liberal into the mix. Isn't that just a little off topic?

    You are all out of proportion. Of course offensive is a broad term in usage. No one has a right to not be offended absolutely. Too many would feign offended simply to win an argument or just be snarky. I feel that is what you are implying here that there may be insincere claims of offense or unreasonably sensitive to an issue or comment. I have managed to find the video(s) that were questionable.

    Let me test you. If you saw a video that said the soldiers never really died in Iraq. Then went soldier by soldier showing before pictures of them and then a picture of each of them all attending a super bowel game drinking beer, eating hot dogs, waving pennants of their favorite teams and laughing all the while being told they never really died afterall. It was a staged government plot. Then you are told they exclusively received money which paid off their debts and on the 4th of July holiday. You are presented with the proposition that the joke is on you because you believed what you were told about them by (legit) media and the money they received was your tax dollars.

    Now that is beyond the mere oversensitivity to something disagreeable, it is disgusting and can be traumatic for anyone with friends or relatives that died or fought in Iraq. You could do the same exercise for the holocaust.

    As I said I have had comments deleted and not known for certain why but I am not in the least concerned that if some one finds my comments disagreeable (as they have) I will be deleted because of it. If I do say something outrageous that is egregious and potentially traumatic or simply escalating hostilities that quash civil discussion I would expect to be deleted. And even if I didn't know what it was I said that got me deleted I would hope that that someone would accept my humblest apologies. I definitly have no fear of my 1st amendment rights. If I can't yell fire in a theater I wil become a fireman.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 1:53 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1111

    Mr Birch, keep up the good work!!

    [thumbup]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 1:48 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1111

    "We..."

    So you don't work for Alex Jones now????

    [huh]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 1:43 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1111

    "I'm sick and tired..."

    [thumbup]

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 1:31 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    Mr. Barrow wrote to Simon Birch as his reasoning for desiring a post to be deleted: "Normally I would let it go but that link to a youtube video claiming that the young victims of Sandy Hook are alive and singing at a Superbowl halftime show is so offensive I can't let it continue on in a paper that represents my community."

    It's happening right here in front of you, Mr. Adams. And you're suggesting that I take blinders off?

    Not citing any violation of the posted rules of conduct, Mr. Birch agreed and then removed another contributor's thoughts and/or opinions. So once again - you're okay with this? Just because Mr. Barrow was so offended that he "[couldn't] let it continue on in a paper that represents [his] community?" I suggest that perhaps you might need to do a little thinking for yourself, Mr. Adams.

    Nevertheless, when it happens to you just remember this little exercise of freedom vs. someone who believes he has some sort of right to not be offended.

     
  • Ted Lauchland posted at 1:19 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Ted Lauchland Posts: 254

    One ad amongst many that can be considered offensive depending on your perspective. Competing gun shops would object too , I am sure.

     
  • Ted Lauchland posted at 1:13 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Ted Lauchland Posts: 254

    Gavels have their use Mr. Kinderman.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:57 am on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Eric Barrow was "offended" by a comment. Simon Birch deletes the comment.

    Helen Sagers was offended by a Lodi Guns advertisement. The ad continues.[sleeping]

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 10:56 am on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    Really, Mr. Heuer? What if the authority in question at the LNS had removed one of your posts not as a result of the violation of any of the posted rules, but simply because I found your comment offensive? I doubt you'd be so "liberal" as to just walk away and say, "that's okay." It's NOT okay, Mr. Heuer.

    Of course I agree that this forum belongs to the News-Sentinel and as such they can govern it in almost anyway they please. But when a member of the media seemingly ignores their own stated set of rules and instead agrees with one contributor over another simply because some offensive threshold has been breached, then we should ALL say it's NOT okay.

    Frankly, I'm sick and tired of this notion that anyone has the right to not be offended. Yeah, that's the soapbox I'm standing on right now. I find most of the liberal mindset to be offensive to me; just as I know you believe conservatism to be offensive. There we are on common ground. But when a member of the media makes the decision to shut the mouth of one in favor of the other, then that's just plain wrong. Gone is the level playing field that they said we had if we played by the eight rules of conduct. Now we have to guard ourselves from offending Mr. Birch.

    Is this really how you want the game to be officiated, Mr. Heuer?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:15 am on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    I'll simply say the same thing I said at 5:51 pm on Wed, Jul 2, 2014.

    "Please substantiate your absurd comment Mike."

    "It's easy for me to substantiate the fact that you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about by simply asking you to provide 1 example of something we have reported that is "innuendo, rumor, or outright lies."

    YOU CAN'T! [angry]

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 10:05 am on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1363

    Mr. Kinderman: "It has to do with what you, Barrow and most liberals seem to believe to be your right (Constitutionally or otherwise) not to be offended."

    You're believing too much of what you hear on your conservative radio and tv shows. Get those blinders off!! Think for yourself!

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:02 am on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    Mr. Birch - do you not see what's going on here? (See Mr. Adams' remarks posted at 11:06 a.m. on Monday, July 7, 2014.) You're worried about anyone raising questions regarding your integrity or that of your co-workers or your company? You work for the "press," Mr. Birch - as such, you have the privilege of being the ONLY job specifically protected by the Constitution of the United States.

    You, your co-workers and/or your company offered this forum for our use. You, your co-workers and/or your company defined a set of eight rules for us to follow. Yet here we have what seemingly appears to be the removal of one participant's comments simply because someone was offended - NOT because he violated any of those rules.

    Over the past few years as I've contributed to this newspaper in different ways through my own letters, comments to others and the wonderful privilege of being a guest columnist, my own integrity has not only been questioned, it's been unfairly and wrongly impugned many times over. Yet I understand that when I volunteer to have anything published in the News-Sentinel, I set myself up to such scrutiny. Do I like it? Of course not.

    Here, you've voluntarily done the same thing. Rather than recognize a violation of the posted rules in order to use your power to remove someone's thoughts and/or opinions, you instead side with one person's notion of what is offensive against that of another. This is NOT how this forum is supposed to work. As a member of the media, you, your co-workers and your company have a sacred duty to fairness and impartiality. You broke from that Mr. Birch. I'm sorry if you find that offensive - but that's simply the way it is.

    Finally, rather than privately offer your thoughts to me in an e-mail message, you've now become an integral part of this conversation. And while you were certainly under no obligation to respond to my previous questions, you instead accused me of questioning your integrity, and then remain silent. I find that rather curious, disturbingly so.

     
  • Jien Kaur posted at 8:45 am on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Jien Kaur Posts: 92

    Oh, now I think I understand these system. I mistake thought that the "reply" buttom was to talk to a previous person comment.

    Now I understand that it purpose is to create a sub thread with a different topic as you call it Mr. Jerome. Thank you for making that clear.

     
  • Simon Birch posted at 7:55 am on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Simon Birch - Online Manager Posts: 158 Staff

    Jerome: Sometimes I don't respond immediately to comments, especially ones that raise several issues, or question my integrity or that of my co-workers and the company I work for.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 8:25 pm on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    I too have been out of town and I seem to have missed Andrews comment. Since the paper has been very liberal in what it allows here as far as off topic or insulting comments I stand by Simon Birch's decision. Mainly because I have witnessed the exchange of insulting comments and back and forth retaliatory comments until whole pages need to be deleted and further comments banned. If Andrew gets a comment deleted, well thats at least one of many where he's managed to post ridiculous assertions and insulting remarks.

    The other thing that needs to be remembered is that freedom of speech doesn't always exist in private industry to the exant it's allowed in public where it's constitutionally protected. The paper can print or exclude anything it wants.

    Also there are no hard fast rules to say what is acceptable or not acceptable. The general rules of participation are not specific but have latitude depending on the eyes of the viewer. It's a case by case decision in context with posts already made and reactions being expressed. I've had comments deleted (not sure why) and made them later in a different context and they were accepted. I've made comments that I thought may have violated a rule or two but they were allowed. So trying to predict what should and shouldn't be allowed is only in the hands of the paper itself and would you have it any other way if it were your business?

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 7:29 pm on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1363

    "Be truthful.Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization."

    You've claimed to be employed by infowars, therefore, you are open to criticism for anything they may post.

    And if we pay particular attention to the part of Rule #4 that reads "Don't post unsubstantiated allegations...". Let me invite fellow readers to go to infowars.com, look at their "news stories" which consist almost entirely of 1 person "news" "outlets" that have official sounding names but are nothing more than other conspiracy websites, which post "unsubstantiated" allegations or statements freely in the form of "news".

    And (I'll leave this to other readers as well), does anyone find it odd that a person who basically copies and pastes almost every single post here, without attribution, is calling someone else a liar?

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 6:33 pm on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    No contradiction at all. My point is that this notion that simply veering off on what I referred to as a sub thread shouldn't necessarily be considered off topic. But just in case you're interested, of all the rules I find most silly, it's that one. But nevertheless, it should be upheld - when it's found to have been truly violated.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 5:36 pm on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    You're missing the point, Mr. Adams; whether purposely or not I don't know. The thing is I don't care what Mr. Liebich posts on his webpage - why should I? This has nothing really to do with him or even what Mr. Barrow was complaining about. It has to do with what you, Barrow and most liberals seem to believe to be your right (Constitutionally or otherwise) not to be offended. No such right exists. As such, Mr. Birch himself violated the rules of this forum by removing those posts. Because as I wrote earlier, at what point does this end? Soon no one's posts will be deemed acceptable because someone is always going to be offended by something.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 5:28 pm on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    Mr. Liebich - I would have thought that if your post DID violate the posted rules, Mr. Birch would have cited such a violation as his reason for removing it. Instead, he was led by someone's invalid right to not be offended as the reason for taking it down. THIS is where I have a very big problem.

    And no, it's not that I think the Youtube link in question has any validity or that it is in any way appropriate - I really don't know because I simply refuse to look at it. It wouldn't matter if I thought it to be true or not. The fact is that this onslaught against other's rights simply because some are offended is way beyond offensive to me. It violates my status as a citizen of the United States of America.

    I would have hoped that Mr. Birch might offer a response to my post, but I never really expected that he would. The only thing he can do now to defend his action is to perhaps backdate a 9th rule that protects everyone from being offended by anyone. At that point we might as well shut this whole thing down.

     
  • Ted Lauchland posted at 4:25 pm on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    Ted Lauchland Posts: 254

    "Open forums" , "Free - for - alls" . - Not.

    "Robert's Rules of Order".

    "Respect for one another".

    "Boy - I thought MY family was bad"

    "My opinion does not have to agree with yours"

    "Trying to make a one-size-fits-all rule rarely works"

    "Not easy being peace officers - is it ?"

    You want a real debate - set one up. The rest of this is just one long gossip column.

    "I have proof" - mocking all the way.

    "Innocent Arguments"

    "Have you ANY idea of what leads to the misuse of weapons?"

    - "Go home and come back tomorrow" -

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 3:48 pm on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1111

    "6 of my last 7"

    [lol]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 3:47 pm on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1111

    "determine my decision..."

    Darryll voted with his feet!

    [lol]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 3:47 pm on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Let there be no doubt that Simon Birch is tolerant of a wide range of opinions including the ridiculous comments from Mike Adams which directly violate RULE OF CONDUCT #4 on a continual basis.

    "Be truthful.Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization."

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 1:27 pm on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Jerome,

    My comment did not violate any of the Rules of Conduct.

    My response to Simon Birch's post, also censored, did not violate any of the 'Rules of Conduct'

    As a matter of fact, 6 of my last 7 comments, none of which violated any of the 'Rules of Conduct' have been censored as well.

    Arbitrarily censoring another's opinion is apparently something Simon Birch feels quite comfortable with.


     
  • Jien Kaur posted at 1:11 pm on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    Jien Kaur Posts: 92

    I can't think other ways that the two comments from the Jerome Kinderman contradict eash other. On today comment he asks the Mr. Birch to follow the commenting rules and the other comment is like he is mocking a person who asks the rules to follow.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 11:06 am on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1363

    Mr. Kinderman: andrew continually posts offensive, inaccurate, doctored, and sometime just outright lies. He claims to be affiliated with one of the country's prime conspiracy theorist web sites as well as it's adjoined daily radio show. No one can find any evidence of his "employment", yet he uses the term "we" often when copying and pasting information from these two sources as well as several other conspiracy web sites.

    If you want a taste of what "his" web site posts and further they type of individual who reads/listens to it, go online and read the a couple of stories with their associated comments. People who have committed mass shootings, murders, as well as the targeted killing of government officials (Las Vegas P.D. 6-14 for instance) including police officers have been documented as readers/listeners.

    In particular to the Newtown MA shootings, conspiracy theorists (and apparently this includes andrew as his name cited in this "removed" post) have routinely contacted the parents of shooting victims, harassing them claiming their children weren't really murdered (or for that matter, even shot) and that this is part of government conspiracy normally known as a "false flag" attack, or an attack made by government agents with the intent to inflame and incite the public into demanding the government take some action, in this case outlawing the owning of firearms by members of the public.

    As one who has defended the 2nd ammendment: "Let's not forget that the possession of guns is protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. What could be more family oriented than that?" in this very thread I am completely dumfounded as to your defense of the perpetuation of this assault.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:15 am on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    Mr. Birch - having been away and not had the ability to read Mr. Liebich's post in question, I find your decision to remove it (or others like it) smacks of true violation of one's freedom of speech. There are eight Rules of Conduct posted on this forum that we are supposed to follow in order to participate. Couldn't you have found Liebich's post to have been in violation of one of those rather than: ". . . suggesting the murder of 20 children and 6 adults either didn't happen or was some sort of conspiracy is disturbing, and any comments suggesting it was have been deleted and won't be allowed in the future" as the basis for your decision?

    Where will that end, Mr. Birch? What other videos (or articles, columns, opinions, etc.) will be deemed so offensive to you that would give you the responsibility and the right to keep it from our innocent eyes and ears? Or when will you side against someone who offers the same argument yet you'll decide that it doesn't rise to the level of "offensiveness" based upon your opinion? Talk about the proverbial slippery slope!

    I find many comments made here along with articles, columns, opinions, letters, etc. published and printed in the News-Sentinel to be offensive. Yet I have never once complained about what the publishers permitted to be published and never have I asked that a comment be removed unless it violated one of those eight rules. I receive the almost-daily delivery of the News-Sentinel - but contained within the section on page two that informs us as to who the editors and publishers are, you are not listed as either. Yet here you've taken it upon yourself to determine what is right or wrong? Now THAT's beyond offensive as far as I'm concerned.

    The Internet is rife with unbelievably offensive material. Whenever someone posts a comment that would have me referred to something on Youtube or sites like it, I rarely (if ever) check them out. Rather, I rely upon the contributor's own words in support of whatever is being discussed. But if I had viewed the video in question, I would have simply formed my own opinion regarding its authenticity and moved on. Sure, Mr. Barrow's comment is compelling - but is it nearly enough to begin censoring another's opinion just because he and you are offended? And for the life of me, please show me where in the Constitution of the United States where any of us are protected from being offended?

    I agree that this forum is the property of the Lodi News-Sentinel and that the final say as to how it is used is apparently up to you Mr. Birch. But unless there was a specific rule violated that would have Mr. Liebich's comment deleted, I am much more offended than any silly, stupid, moronic or otherwise ridiculous video posted on Youtube could make me. Wouldn't a semi-official disclaimer from you regarding the video been more reasonable than taking the steps that you did? Your answer to that could very well determine my decision regarding further reading of and participating in this newspaper.

    By the way, is it really true that "three reports get a posting taken down" as Mr. Barrow suggests? Please tell me that this isn't true. I had always thought that the eight rules dictated participation here - not three random complaints from people who might be nothing more than "offended." As you and Mr. Hanner should be aware, the First Amendment regarding the protection of speech and a free press wasn't created to protect those things that are all warm and fuzzy to the majority. Rather, it was precisely this kind of censorship that the Founder's were thinking about when authoring the Bill of Rights. Please try to keep that in mind when someone else demands that he/she ". . . can't let it continue in a paper that represents [their] community." You don't find that an offensive notion, Mr. Birch - that it appears you made your decision because a reader threatened the Lodi News-Sentinel?

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 8:53 am on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1479

    Thank You

     
  • Simon Birch posted at 8:25 pm on Thu, Jul 3, 2014.

    Simon Birch - Online Manager Posts: 158 Staff

    Eric: We're tolerant of a wide range of opinions in the comments. However, I agree that suggesting the murder of 20 children and 6 adults either didn't happen or was some sort of conspiracy is disturbing, and any comments suggesting it was have been deleted and won't be allowed in the future.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 5:37 pm on Thu, Jul 3, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 314

    "Acidic Asectics"...now there's a name for a rock band!! [smile]

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 1:01 pm on Thu, Jul 3, 2014.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1479

    It's not something I've done before but I am reporting Andrew's post put up at 6:16 pm on Fri, Jun 27, 2014. Normally I would let it go but that link to a youtube video claiming that the young victims of Sandy Hook are alive and singing at a Superbowl halftime show is so offensive I can't let it continue on in a paper that represents my community. It is my understanding that three reports get a posting taken down I would invite two others in this community to join me and see to it that no one has to see it in the future. I would also ask the editors to take a look and see if this is something they want in their paper.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 9:07 am on Thu, Jul 3, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1111

    "Acidic Asectic"

    Jerry remember...

    YOU reap what YOU sow.

    [thumbdown]

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 8:26 am on Thu, Jul 3, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1363

    Even worse Eric is that conspiracy theorists have called and harrassed the parents of Sandy Hook, trying to legitamize their claim of a conspiracy.

    The law should include conspiracy theorists as well.

    Are these the types of people you want owning guns?

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 8:24 am on Thu, Jul 3, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1363

    Very nice post!!!

    But in your case, when you use the term "we", it always means someone else. You are not included in "we", you just pass on information (consisting of mostly the wrong conclusions (what you refer to as "a much more accurate interpretation")) like you had some part in it.

    But I do like how you mistakenly included in the title of the rag "infowars" as would allow police to confiscate guns based on accusation alone".
    Do you even understand restraining orders?
    Do you even understand the purpose behind not allowing someone accused of a violent crime or of making violent threats to someone and then allowing them to buy or keep a gun? This would all get ironed out very quickly leaving only those who are actual threats to themselves or others not holding a gun. But like all infowars propaganda, you scratch the surface and you see there is nothing there other than sensational gibberish penned by someone who doesn't know a thing about the law or guns.

    But do keep up the good work....you may be the only person who actually reads infowars for content. And as we have established long ago, you don't work there so maybe you could stop using "we" to infer you do. Well maybe as their only reader, you qualify as part of the staff.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 4:00 pm on Wed, Jul 2, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    A couple of years ago the Comments Forum was upgraded to allow what I like to call "sub-threads." Rather than having comments all in one column making the ability to move on to other conversations while certainly not "Off Topic," but not necessarily sticking with a particular subject matter, it was their intent to be a tad "liberal" insofar as their off-topic policy is concerned. At first I thought the move wouldn't work; but after awhile it did occur to me that not only would it save time for LNS employees from having to judge what was or was not "off topic," it gives users of the forum more flexibility to move around a bit in response to Letters to the Editor, Columns, Stories and other published features.

    I am amazed then just how some are so adamant that if (in their opinion) anyone with whom they disagree posts something "off topic," it results in such foot-stomping, juvenile, playground antics. I can almost see the white-knuckles of a few of these contributors as they pound out their defiant rants demanding that Mr. Birch take immediate action against these law-breakers practically expecting the Lodi Police to force them into submission or face criminal or at least civil sanction for their scofflaw behavior.

    But then again - it is all so amusing, huh? Uh-oh, did I go "off topic?" I don't think so as I am only responding to what others believe to be "on topic" about others being "off topic." Never mind - it is all so confusing - but fun!!

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 1:18 pm on Wed, Jul 2, 2014.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1479

    Andrew I thought I was clear about conversing with you when on Friday June 27th you went too far and provided/supported a youtube url with some sick individual who was claiming that the victims of Sandy Hook were part of a Superbowl halftime show and that the slaughter of those innocents was a hoax.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:33 am on Wed, Jul 2, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Why make such a ridiculous statement Mr. Barrow?

    In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago’s long-standing gun ban, some of the toughest gun-control laws in the nation, yet during the ban Chicago had more homicides than any other city in the nation.
    [sleeping]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:19 am on Wed, Jul 2, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    I think you need to re-read the legislation Mike.[lol]

    To clarify: The research we have done on AB 1014 during the last week allows us to provide a much more accurate interpretation.

    READ: http://www.infowars.com/bill-would-allow-police-to-confiscate-guns-based-on-accusation-alone/

    p.s. The legislation restricts possession for 1 year.[sleeping]

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 7:50 am on Wed, Jul 2, 2014.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1479

    Gay marriage has nothing to do with it other than as an example of how conservatives try to push their beliefs onto others and than claim they are all about freedom of choice.

     
  • Bob Marconi posted at 7:09 pm on Tue, Jul 1, 2014.

    Bob Marconi Posts: 38

    Thanks, Helen, for the heads-up. I've been meaning to purchase a gun TO PROTECT MYSELF AND MY FAMILY!

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 6:55 pm on Tue, Jul 1, 2014.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Still, where is my comment about the Hobby Lobby decision and WHY do some commenters, like Jerome Kinderman get a pass on [offtopic] comments?

    Ignoring me doesn't solve YOUR problem, Mr. Birch.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 5:52 pm on Tue, Jul 1, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1363

    Oh yes.... I've read AB 1014.
    Hhhmmmmm....keeps guns out of the hands of those who have threatened gun violence...imagine that. To clarify (to show I'm making no attempt to pass these off as my own words) I got the following info from:

    http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1014

    "This bill would authorize a court to issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order, upon a showing of good cause, prohibiting the subject of the petition from having under his or her custody and control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive a firearm or ammunition, as specified. The bill would require the ex parte order to expire no later than 14 days after the date on the order and would require a law enforcement officer to serve the restrained person the ex parte order, if the restrained person can reasonably be located. The bill would permit the restrained person to request a hearing on the order, and, if it is found at the hearing that the order is not supported by good cause, would require the court to dissolve the order."

    Perhaps if some people would read the proposed legislation (and not rely on the opinions or interpretations of everyone else) they might be taken more seriously.
    I've read I don't know how many "alerts" about some government agency or the federal or state governments taking away our gun owning rights and in almost every single case, there is no change or addition to existing legislation, and gun owners are still safe. Personally, I know a lot of people who have guns but shouldn't (in my opinion), but I don't turn them in. Why? Because none of them have propensity to commit violent acts. Or, they haven't just had an argument with their wife.

    The NRA supports keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have guns. Certainly, potentially violent or unstable individuals shouldn't have firearms.
    Everytime there is a mass shooting or some kook goes off the deep end and takes it out on the patrons in a restaurant or school or where ever, all of us who own firearms and obey the law get painted with the same broad brush as fellow idiots.
    This legislation restricts possession for only 2 weeks.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 1:35 pm on Tue, Jul 1, 2014.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1843

    Yo Bobbin, selective "off topic" protests? Didn't see any when Eric Barrow or Thomas Heuer brought up the gay topic in the FIRST place.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 1:20 pm on Tue, Jul 1, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    What does YouTube have to do with the City of Newtown's Assessors website? Is there a reason you can't visit the site and verify the information for yourself?

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 12:53 pm on Tue, Jul 1, 2014.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1479

    Joe you keep stating that tougher gun control laws wont stop criminals from getting guns do you base that statement on any factual data or is this just a gut feeling you have

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 11:50 am on Tue, Jul 1, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1363

    The only good thing about russian cartridges, is that you don't feel bad about collecting your spent brass. I try and avoid weird looking cartridges. They are made by people who lost the cold war you know.

    Like every other contemporary minuteman, Federal XM855 5.56 62 grain "green tip" fill my mags. With a couple tracers at the bottom of the stack.

    Will it sound like Baghdad around here on Fri. night?

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 11:08 am on Tue, Jul 1, 2014.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1843

    The low information liberals need to go to a gun store and buy a gun. When you find out what you really have to go through to purchase a firearm legally, you will realize there are already enough checks in place and no amount of piling on more will keep criminals from obtaining illegal firearms. Of course the liberal gestapo doesn't WANT anyone to purchase and own firearms under any circumstances. Unarmed people are not a threat to tyranny. Hitler knew it, worked well in Germany, eh?

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 11:03 am on Tue, Jul 1, 2014.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1843

    What does firearms have to do with gay rights? And WHY are a few on here trying to invoke similarities?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:00 am on Tue, Jul 1, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    No, I am saying that your statement, "there are morons and they get guns which could be avoided with gun sales checks" is false.
    [sleeping]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:53 am on Tue, Jul 1, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    I haven't "convicted" anyone. I merely pointed out the fact that Yee was arrested for gun trafficking.[sleeping]

    Time for another reality check Ms. Bobin...http://youtu.be/8aWDMufcS3k

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 10:46 am on Tue, Jul 1, 2014.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1843

    Yeah, like the liberals "convicted" Christie before he were was ever charged?

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 8:43 am on Tue, Jul 1, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1363

    I'm sure Lodi Guns appreciates all the interest in their ad.

    Maybe those of you who might lean against the common ownership of firearms should drop by? Or Professional Firearms (OK, the name appears nowhere in or on the store, but it's the only business on Lodi Ave. with a roll up garage door that doesn't service cars).

    There is a subset of owners who like to go in and talk about guns. They don't necessarily buy any guns, but they like to talk about them. And everyone of them has a favorite gun of the moment. Often times there is anti-government talk, but fortunately, they don't know the Constitution well enough to propose possible solutions. I said on the day of the massacre at Newtown, MA, that the government (US) would change no laws. And they haven't.

    This group is far different from the psycho killers who want to take action on some distorted belief they hold. The gun talkers would never consider shooting up a school or church or synagog and (contrary to infowars) would be the first to report anyone like this. Or the guy who comes in mad at his ex-wife.

    BTW, we have a 10 day wait on long guns in CA because some loser was mad at his ex-wife, went to a store, bought a cheap shotgun and shells and went over to where she works and killed her. If you don't believe this, you can probably look it up. It was the mid to late 80's and it happened in Sacramento.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 4:47 pm on Mon, Jun 30, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    Andrew you are essentiall saying that the "Virginia Tech shooter passed a background check.." and still killed so therefore we should just give trying to mitigate the loss of childrens lives?
    Thats like saying some bank robbers got away therefore we should just give up trying to protect your money?

    But now since we got one gun trafficker can we go after the rest? Is that what we are saying here?

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:18 pm on Mon, Jun 30, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1111

    [thumbup]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:17 pm on Mon, Jun 30, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1111

    "selected scripture"

    Bada Bing Bada Boom!

    [thumbup]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:11 pm on Mon, Jun 30, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1111

    "Thursday edition... firearms advertisements"

    In stock: 12,500 round drums of Federal XM855 5.56 62 grain "green tip" SLC brass - $4800

    This is the real deal, genuine MIL-SPEC and from a reputable firearms dealer on Fruitridge Blvd. to boot!

    Don't be shootin' that Russian crapola in your fine USA made AR sporter, support America.

    What's in your magazine??


    [beam]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 3:26 pm on Mon, Jun 30, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Did you read AB 1014 yet Mike? Surely you have an opinion on what many are calling one of the most draconian and flagrantly unconstitutional bills in the state’s, and maybe even the nation’s, history.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 3:20 pm on Mon, Jun 30, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Of course you don't. Changing the subject? Seriously?[lol]

    Apparently you aren't familiar with Yee's legislation or arrest.
    [rolleyes]

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 3:17 pm on Mon, Jun 30, 2014.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Liebich wrote: "Did you know that California Democrat State Senator Leland Yee wanted "tougher checks" and even went as far as introducing a bill to ban 3D printers Mr. Barrow? Unfortunately, he was arrested by the FBI for gun trafficking."

    For someone who constantly complains that everyone else is violating the Constitution, Mr. Liebich certainly has little respect for that document. This is the second time in a matter of hours that he has "convicted" an individual of a crime before they have even gone to trial.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 2:55 pm on Mon, Jun 30, 2014.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1479

    That's sick. I suppose there is no longer any reason to discuss things Andrew you obviously will except anything on you tube as factual your complete lack of discrimination is pathetic. Enjoy your fantasy world for me you have crossed a line and you're conspiracy theories have gone from humorous to downright bad taste. I can handle silly but I wont be a part of ugly. Laters.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 1:55 pm on Mon, Jun 30, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1363

    Regardless of some here who misinterpret the NRA position on gun ownership, as well as responsible gun owners here in CA, some individuals (both by legislation and popular opinion) should not be allowed (and in fact, cannot) to own firearms.
    The mentally ill (and I am familiar with at least one local case) should not have guns. Think of Ms. Giffords and the nut in Newtown, and all the other nuts who don't have the mental ability to supress the their violent thoughts to go out and commit mass murder.

    Individuals who have been found guilty of violent acts in the past. Individuals who have restraining orders against them because they have threatened violence. Individuals who (at least temporarily, while their case is being ajudicated) who have been arrested for violent acts or potential violent acts.

    It is to no benefit to the gun owning public, or possible victims, to waive these restrictions. When first signed into law, several bills prevented even police officers from owning a firearm if they had domestic violence convictions or restraining orders against them.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 1:01 pm on Mon, Jun 30, 2014.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1479

    I don't see what his arrest or any corruption has to do with tougher checks and waiting periods but nice try changing the subject.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 12:24 pm on Mon, Jun 30, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    Eric you are so right.
    [thumbup]

    BTW Joe Baxter started the gay marriage diversion Thur 4:22 below.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 12:16 pm on Mon, Jun 30, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    Ms Welch [thumbup]
    Very well said and on target.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 12:13 pm on Mon, Jun 30, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    MR Kinderman
    Who contributes to "ad nauseum" with repeated hypocritical statements and perpetuation of bigoted discrimination? Many felt the same frustration with the gradual move away from racial segregation which also began with mere “tolerance” then "acceptance" before gaining full equal participation in society, free to buy homes, eat in popular restaurants, and marry whomever they chose. Of course there are still those who can't even get past racial "acceptance" to this day. The discrimination against same sex marriage will no doubt hypocritically continue for some time using selected scripture to hide behind and justify their hostility (very unchristian like). The same way selected scripture was used to justify slavery and racial discrimination.

    BTW the little Israel story (from your link) sounded dubious especially when coming from WND. It’s made even more curious because that can't ever happen here since there is a separation of church and state. However christians are working hard to nationalize their religion forcing all to "ACCEPT" their fanciful ideas and practices.

    As I've said before I continue to be irritated by those who have found a way of life they freely chose (and everyone is free to do so) but have the audacity to want to deny others in this country their same right to follow a different belief. Your beliefs stop with you and those who share your beliefs. Your free to share your beliefs but not inflict them on the unwilling. You don’t have to support gay marriage, especially for yourself, but it is “hate speech” if you say NOBODY can have same sex marriage then actively move against those who don’t share your UNSUPPORTABLE beliefs. It is, after all, a free country. You really don’t understand the founding fathers or the constitution do you?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 9:48 am on Mon, Jun 30, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Did you know that California Democrat State Senator Leland Yee wanted "tougher checks" and even went as far as introducing a bill to ban 3D printers Mr. Barrow? Unfortunately, he was arrested by the FBI for gun trafficking.
    ROFLMAO![lol]

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 8:40 am on Mon, Jun 30, 2014.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    WHY IS KINDERMAN'S GAY MARRIAGE RANT HERE?

    [offtopic]

    [offtopic]

    [offtopic]

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 8:17 am on Mon, Jun 30, 2014.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1479

    Who brought up gay marriage? Also I don't think it will be called hate speech "soon"
    I think it is considered hateful now. I heard a radio show that discussed how major corporations are starting to get the message and Coke and other large advertisers are targeting the LGTB community. Oh the times they are a changing.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 8:07 am on Mon, Jun 30, 2014.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1479

    That's why we need tougher checks and longer waiting periods.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 9:56 pm on Sun, Jun 29, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 314

    You are correct, Mr Kinderman, that no civil liberty regarding marriage specifically exists in the Bill of Rights. Marriage is a state power as allowed by the 10th amendment. However, the 14th amendment clearly protects same-sex marriage just as it protected interracial marriages in the 1960s. I urge you to look up the case Loving v. Virginia. The government (federal and state) cannot discriminate against people in terms of marriage. Same-sex marriage IS protected by the Constitution. It's not political correctness, it's civil rights!

    As for the story out of Israel and your claim that stuff like that is happening in the US, I tried a "simple Google search" for about 15 minutes and couldn't find anything similar. Could you point out some articles/examples?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:32 pm on Sun, Jun 29, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Virginia Tech shooter passed a background check before obtaining a gun and killing 32 people, despite having been declared mentally ill two years before.
    [sleeping]

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 4:17 pm on Sat, Jun 28, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    Thank you for your testifying to the fact that there are morons and they get guns which could be avoided with gun sales checks.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 2:36 pm on Sat, Jun 28, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    Once again (ad nauseum), the owning and possession of a gun is specifically protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America; getting married has no such protection.

    But since the issue has been raised, let's look at what I've been most concerned about regarding the homosexual marriage issue has come into play. At first, the homosexual community simply wanted to be tolerated; then they moved on to accepted; finally we're at the point where not only do they wish to be celebrated, but they want others to suffer if they don't agree with same-sex marriage; that based upon their First Amendment right to believe as they choose insofar as religion is concerned, the homosexual community wants them (us) punished. Of course when I first pontificated this a few years ago I was pooh-poohed and it was insisted that no, Mr. Kinderman - such things would never happen.

    Let's fast-forward to just recently in Israel where this very thing is happening (see http://tinyurl.com/lpw33vv). "[Two] women, who were married in England, where same-sex unions are legal, wanted to renew their vows and hold a reception at the Messianic Israeli moshav, or settlement. When the receptionist explained 'the owners are believers in the Bible and cannot perform a ceremony of this nature here,' the women filed a lawsuit." "A judge ruled in favor of the lesbian couple and awarded them $20,000 in “damages.”

    This type of thing is happening in the United States as well. A simple Google will prove that. Furthermore, the mere statement by someone who doesn't support marriage between anyone other than one man and one woman will very soon be accused of "hate speech" simply because it might offend someone.

    How we've come to the point where one enumerated Constitutional protection can be ignored simply because another might be offended should be incredibly offensive to any freedom-loving, Constitution-supporting American citizen. Instead, we have these activist judges and courts breaking (not just bending) the Constitution in order to be politically correct.

    Finally, "practicing Catholic" vice-president Joe Biden made his stance somewhat clear just the other day. For a good laugh, take a look at http://tinyurl.com/qhdp2m9. So much for standing up for what one believes insofar as their faith is concerned simply to go along with the flow politically speaking. In a word: unbelievable; but sadly it's true.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 12:46 pm on Sat, Jun 28, 2014.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1843

    Mike Adams. your post is accurate and logical. Are you sure you are not a closet conservative?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:34 am on Sat, Jun 28, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    [lol]...It's time for a reality check Ms. Bobin. http://youtu.be/AimbTtuOhY4

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 11:08 am on Sat, Jun 28, 2014.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1843

    Eric posted: "Guns don't kill people, people use guns to kill people."
    People use knives, baseball bats,poisons and fists and other thinigs to murder people too, what's your point? Firearms are inaminate objects. It takes a human to make them do what they were designed to do. It takes a MORON to use them in illegal acts.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 10:53 am on Sat, Jun 28, 2014.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1843

    Eric, thank you for substantiating my point about passing laws to fix problems. Drug laws did not eradicate drug problems and gun laws, including any new ones, will not stop criminals from obtaining guns and using them illegally.All the liberal rhetoric is total political posturing, pure and simple.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 8:00 pm on Fri, Jun 27, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1363

    Check out the Sacramento Bee Thursday editions. I believe that's the day when they have the most firearms advertisements. Check the Sports section first and then move out to the other sections.

    And referring to the LTE, gun violence in schools is very very low. Probably the safest place to be other than locked in a bank vault. It just sensationalized more so more people can gasp and wonder about all the violence in schools. We always told students, who got into trouble skipping school, that if they had been in their seats, in their classroom, what ever it was wouldn't have happened.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 2:38 pm on Fri, Jun 27, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    I couldn't have said it better myself Eric.
    Oh delayed posting strikes again.
    [wink]

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 2:12 pm on Fri, Jun 27, 2014.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Liebich wrote: "The fact that a significant increase in gun ownership has not led to an increase in gun injuries or deaths undercuts one of the primary arguments of advocates of gun control. Contrary to their delusional assertions, allowing law abiding Americans to own guns doesn’t lead to an increase in violence."

    Here's the flawed "thinking" (actually - not even "thinking" about this) that people like Mr. Liebich employ.

    Gun ownership (actually - gun SALES) has "increased" because all of the people who already own guns have gone out and bought a few dozen more for their arsenal in the belief that Obama was going to restrict gun ownership or confiscate guns.

    How many of the NUTS who have, in the last several years, gone out and shot up people in public or at elementary schools or colleges gone on their rampages with more than one gun? They bring guns with huge capacities along with three or four or five other guns - just in case.

    Mr. Liebich's statement is, as usual, quite illogical.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:59 pm on Fri, Jun 27, 2014.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    [thumbup] Mr. Barrow and Mr. Heuer!

     
  • M. Doyle posted at 1:50 pm on Fri, Jun 27, 2014.

    M Doyle Posts: 101

    "guns don't kill, people do."
    "if everyone owned a gun, we'd be safer."

    Kind of sounds like the same premise as nukes don't kill, people do. If every country had a nuke, the world would be a safer place.

    I don't own a gun, however I am not opposed to responsible folks owning them. Most people, liberals and conservatives alike, are supportive of common sense gun laws that protect the public. It would be best if we stopped the arguing about this and worked together on some solutions that keep us all safe while protecting the rights of individuals who choose to own firearms.

    Who cares what the LNS advertises? Way too much reaction to this. There are more guns on ten minutes of network television than in twenty years of LNS advertisements. Guns are legal, I agree, so fair game for ads as LNS sees fit. I'd be curious to see how some of you would react if LNS started running ads for some other perfectly legal items though. Oh, the hysteria, if Saturday's paper had a sales pitch for sex toys, condoms, a Jesus look-alike contest, or an abortion clinic. So, be careful about using that "it's legal" defense unless you are really prepared to support those other types of ads too.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 10:37 am on Fri, Jun 27, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    Why can't conservatives think the same way about gay marriage as you do here about firearms? If you don't like it don't do it. Why insist no one else can and set about legislating prohibitions?
    PS Your Thur 4:22 post brought up gay marriage I'm just responding. I don't want to be accused of going off topic here.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 10:23 am on Fri, Jun 27, 2014.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1479

    Guns don't kill people, people use guns to kill people.

    Also most drugs are illegal so let's at least be as restrictive about guns as drugs

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 10:18 am on Fri, Jun 27, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    Of course "owning" a gun isn't unethical at least for this exercise. The ethics of front paging the ad was the LTE authors ethics question. To question are guns legal is a no brainer. The ethics of guns is a whole other discussion and many are not ready to have obviously. That would require mature rational adult thinking.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 10:13 am on Fri, Jun 27, 2014.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1479

    The difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that if a Liberals doesn't want to have a gay marriage they don't and if a conservative doesn't want to have a gay marriage they stop everyone from having one. If a liberal doesn't want an abortion they don't have one but if a conservative doesn't want to have one they stop everyone from having one. If a Liberal doesn't want to read the Bible they don't a conservative forces everyone to live by it. And silly conservatives think they hold freedom dear.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 9:58 am on Fri, Jun 27, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    Keep working on that one. Maybe it will work some day but I doubt it. Shovels don't dig people do. Lawn mowers don't mow people do. Hamburgers don't cook people do. You see a pattern here?

    "A gun can sit on a shelf for a hundred years..." and ethics is a Rubix cube.

    Gun checks are needed.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 9:50 pm on Thu, Jun 26, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 314

    Yes...hi Mike! Looking forward to reading your thoughts again...

     
  • Will Rainwater posted at 7:27 pm on Thu, Jun 26, 2014.

    Will Rainwater Posts: 43

    They pay EXTRA for the ad to be on the front page!

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 6:21 pm on Thu, Jun 26, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Read AB 1014.[sleeping]

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 4:31 pm on Thu, Jun 26, 2014.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1843

    The difference between LIBERALS and conservatives. IF a conservative doesn't want a firearm, he simply doesn't buy one. IF a LIBERAL doesn't want one, he doesn't want anyone else to have one either. Good luck with that you poor misguided liberals.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 4:22 pm on Thu, Jun 26, 2014.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1843

    MEAN ethical, not men ethical

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 4:22 pm on Thu, Jun 26, 2014.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1843

    "Legal doesn't men ethical." Just like GAY marriage, eh?

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 3:14 pm on Thu, Jun 26, 2014.

    the old dog Posts: 483

    [thumbup]

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 1:34 pm on Thu, Jun 26, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    Geez
    The letter merely states is it necessary to print the gun ad on the front page of a family newspaper. It didn't say not to print it on any page, it didn't say that guns should be outlawed (or even restricted), it didn't say anything against the 2nd amendment, it didn't say gun owners are bad people, yet the very topic of guns brings out the Pavlovian responses of gun paranoids in essence crying the "give me liberty or give me..." to "from my cold dead hands...". We even have one poster that decided to sum up all their past grievances in this forum as comment to this LTE.

    Its a simple letter that should have garnered little if any response. Of course its not necessary to front page the ad however the fact that it is is really inconsequential. I really don't think kids are going to see the ad (if they do see the ad) and make any life altering decisions over it. PS I did not see the ad but describing it as up in a corner suggests to me it was small. I grew up with guns and understand the responsible and sane ownership. I have no worries over my second amendment rights. And Obama is my president.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 1:02 pm on Thu, Jun 26, 2014.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1843

    Well, that didn't last long.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 12:59 pm on Thu, Jun 26, 2014.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1843

    How sad that people believe the liberal anti-gun hype. PEOPLE kill people. Criminals who want a gun will get a gun regardless of what laws are passed. Mexico has a strict no gun policy, works well there, eh? Are cars responsible for drunken driving deaths? Are pencils responsible for incorrect spelling? Are spoons making people fat? When you research the statistics, gun related deaths in America have been on the decline for years even though gun ownership is on the rise. The liberal media with their anti-gun agenda ignore and twist the FACTS.
    Two times more people die annually from drug overdoses. Drug laws working?
    Five times more people die annually by drowning. Let's ban swimming?
    Sixty eight times more people die annually in automobile accidents. Let's ban cars? The 2nd amendment was penned for a reason, the liberals are trying to eradicate for it a reason and it has nothing to do with gun deaths.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 8:46 am on Thu, Jun 26, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    Simply "owning" a gun doesn't make it unethical; it's what someone actually "does" with one that may bring ethics into play. What it does prove is that no gun has killed anyone or any thing without the actions of a human being. A gun can sit on a shelf for a hundred years without causing injury or death so long as it's not picked up, loaded, pointed at another human being, and the trigger pulled by another human being. "Responsible" gun ownership must be taught and learned.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 8:16 am on Thu, Jun 26, 2014.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1479

    God Bless the Newtown Parents and the four year old survivors.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 7:33 am on Thu, Jun 26, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1111

    Mike, good to see you!!

    [smile]

     
  • Will Rainwater posted at 7:08 pm on Wed, Jun 25, 2014.

    Will Rainwater Posts: 43

    God Bless the Constitution, God Bless the free market, and God Bless Lodi Guns!!!!!!!!!!!!

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 6:05 pm on Wed, Jun 25, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1976

    I agree with one statement in this LTE, That we should protect our children. To do that let's allow every law abiding citizen **who passes a gun safety course including accuracy** carry a gun.

    Highest crime cities have very strict gun laws, LOWEST crime cities have very loose gun laws (on average). Should say something right there.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 6:00 pm on Wed, Jun 25, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1363

    It would be nice if Lodi had 1 more gun store. Since Nick retired, we have only Professional Firearms and Lodi Guns, both fine stores, both very professional.

    Ms. Sagers should know that the sale of firearms has gone through the roof since President Obama took office, mostly because of the scare tactics the right employs on a regular basis...you know...limiting mag caps, internet sales of ammunition, etc. There are many others. Some of these have been introduced and passed in individual states and have no effect on us here in CA. The right doesn't care for accuracy when they can rile up the masses about gun confiscation and 50 cent per round taxes on each bullet you buy. The best one is about federal agencies buying millions (or billions) of rounds of ammunition so we can't have it. What government agency still uses 38 Special? Or 38 S&W for that matter? How about 45 Long Colt?
    Not real popular with the feds, but still hard to find.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 4:28 pm on Wed, Jun 25, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999


    The fact that a significant increase in gun ownership has not led to an increase in gun injuries or deaths undercuts one of the primary arguments of advocates of gun control. Contrary to their delusional assertions, allowing law abiding Americans to own guns doesn’t lead to an increase in violence.

    The gun homicide rate is down 49% since 1993.

     
  • Will Rainwater posted at 3:12 pm on Wed, Jun 25, 2014.

    Will Rainwater Posts: 43

    God Bless the 1st AND 2nd Amendment, God Bless the free market and God Bless Lodi Guns!!!!!

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 12:40 pm on Wed, Jun 25, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2348

    Let's not forget that the possession of guns is protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. What could be more family oriented than that?

    Still, since the Constitution itself has come under fire of late regarding both the First and Second Amendments, I wonder if Ms. Sagers is equally offended by the advertisements published regarding religion especially in the Saturday/Sunday edition. And since she's obviously "offended" by the gun shop advertisement, could she also be offended by anyone who voices their opinion about marriage, or maybe even think that a new amendment protecting Americans from being offended might be reasonable?

    A quick look through the News-Sentinel reveals very few advertisements especially in this week's Tuesday edition (for the life of me I can't find the one delivered to my door this morning (Wednesday)). I sure would like to see a comparison of paid subscribers between 1990 and perhaps 2013. With the advent of the Internet along with 24/7 news coverage on cable TV, it should come as no surprise if the drop in readership might be quite significant. That might account for the gun shop advertisement showing up in this "fine, family newspaper"; but since the First Amendment specifically protects this publication, I doubt they gave any second thought to printing that one advertisement.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 10:50 am on Wed, Jun 25, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1414

    Legal doesn't mean its ethical.

     
  • John Kindseth posted at 9:04 am on Wed, Jun 25, 2014.

    John Kindseth Posts: 243

    Guns and sales are legal.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 5 hours ago by Kevin Paglia.

article: Letter: We must deal with Islamic State…

Steve and Ed, you two are very wrong, If you are talking cars NOTHING beats the Jaguar XK120. I'll put the Jag FX Coupe supercharged again…

More...

Posted 5 hours ago by M. Doyle.

article: Letter: Thanks for the discussion on th…

Just for kicks: Hypothetically speaking, is it possible your god is a figment of your imagination, a fantasy crutch to assuage your fear of…

More...

Posted 5 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Letter: Thanks for the discussion on th…

Mr Nedderton, Thats it, we're done. You want to continue the insults that now include paranoia so we have nothing more to discuss. Thanks …

More...

Posted 5 hours ago by Jerome Kinderman.

article: Downtown merchants: Parking garage need…

Sadly, but not all that surprisingly the only times I've found the garage at all useful was when a special event was going such as the bi-a…

More...

Posted 5 hours ago by Eric Barrow.

article: Letter: We must deal with Islamic State…

Ed to each his own, enjoy your ride and have a good weekend.

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists