Comments by ksnewsie
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Posted on April 10 at 2:49 p.m.
Lord knows I wanted the ban to pass. BUT, I would feel better if it passed by a wide margin. It did not, so to be sure and be safe about the vote, I think it needs a recount of ALL ballots. Six votes is way to close without further scrutiny.
And yes, the Gazette dropped it big time.
Posted on April 10 at 2:39 p.m.
Either way, it is too close....we need a recount to be sure. Otherwise, we'll all be wondering...RECOUNT!!
Posted on April 10 at 2:36 p.m.
It is too close. The only way to be sure is a recount!!
Posted on April 8 at 10:08 p.m.
As a matter of fact, rbow, I have. Not really sure why that is relevant, but I have done all those things -- successfully, I might add.
My point being that I have enjoyed the intelligent and thought provoking posts offered by both sides of this issue. I do not care for the posts who, for example, imply that someone might be a prostitute because she has "a lot of boyfriends."
Posted on April 8 at 10:01 p.m.
Let me see if I got this straight:
-->A group of citizens got together and asked the government to approve a ban on SHS.
-->After much discussion, government approved the ban.
-->Another group of citizens banned together and work to get the residents of the community to vote on the ban.
-->The public votes and the results are.....yet to be determined.
Pass or Fail, isn't this exactly how government is supposed to work?
On What’s next?
Posted on April 8 at 6:03 p.m.
Good Idea, Goose. And because residents of Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma and Colorado spend money in Kansas, we should allow them to vote on state issues, too.
Posted on April 8 at 6:01 p.m.
Louwho is right.
It would be tragic if someone was killed by a drunk driver because the police were too busy enforcing the ban on second hand smoke. If I were the family of the drunk driver's victim, I would definitely include the smoker in the subsequent civil suit. Afterall, it was his illegal action that forced the police to take the time to issue him a citation rather than allow officers to remain on the street and possibly catch the drunk.
I wonder if the family could sue the bar owner for not taken care of the problem before the police had to be called in?
Posted on April 8 at 5:56 p.m.
The Constitution was designed to protect us from an OVER-REACHING government. It has long been established that government has the right AND obligation to protect its citizens from known health hazards such as second-hand smoke.
On What’s next?
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Posted on April 13 at 9:31 p.m.
Ate at Bruff's Saturday. Mentioned to the waitress that I voted FOR the ban. She thanked me.
On Recount request filed for smoking ban question