Today's Paper Latest Elections Coronavirus 🔵 Covid Classroom Cooking Families Core values Story ideas iPad Weather Newsletters Obits Puzzles Archive
Comments by kdc72701
Contact kdc72701

Registration is required to make comments. Click here to LOGIN.
You can register for FREE to post comments and receive alerts.

kdc72701 (KATE CURT) says...


April 23, 2015 at 8:30 p.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

kdc72701 (KATE CURT) says...


May 13, 2015 at 6:35 p.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

kdc72701 (KATE CURT) says...

I could be wrong (I often am and I do not mind admitting it, though I still expect people to behave). I would say Welfare peaked in the late 1970s. But Medicaid and Medicare have gone up for certain and fairly dramatically.

June 7, 2015 at 3:57 p.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

BBbendknee (BENNY BRAND) says...

Actually Kate more people are killed with hammers than guns (define hammer as tool used to strike) this is statistical fact. The first hammer was undoubtedly used before the invention of nails and there is no mystery, its purpose was to maim debilitate and kill. Technology has advanced remarkably, social progress seems not to have. "What is to blame?" No rather I think who is to blame. And how can we contemplate the death penalty when we as society share the guilt.

June 23, 2015 at 9:20 p.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

BBbendknee (BENNY BRAND) says...

You are amazing Kate, so passionate and provocative in defense of your beliefs. This question you asked "No one is asking them to acquiesce to anything else are they?" Well in response I know I am being asked to; through tax credits and benefits to profit individuals who to me appear not to be interested in the creation of and maintenance of stable society. Rather these LGBTQs show interest in nothing but buggering each other in the public face. Why for that do they deserve financial benefits I as a single person am not allowed. Benefits I again protest were incited for the totally necessary aid of families conceiving and rearing children, only for that.

July 2, 2015 at 5:16 p.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

BBbendknee (BENNY BRAND) says...

kdc72701 says... July 2, 2015 at 4:25 p.m.
Capitalist 12: Maybe it just seemed like he was pandering when he made remarks about most people not working or paying taxes! Pandering just means making empty talk to try to impress the crazies. But clearly he was too reasonable on his record, oops I mean liberal. IOW, He made a pandering effort but he probably is not very good at it because he is straight-forward and his record (it hurts to have a record) gave him away as far too liberal for many.
( permalink | suggest removal )
kdc72701 says... July 2, 2015 at 4:28 p.m.
Basically he did pander during the election, he just failed at pandering. The guy was not a good enough liar. And he has a public record.
The user KATE CURT sent the following message to you via Arkansas Online:
Sorry Why did you say this to me? "Please start with the words relevance and pandering.."
Kate you can see above your definition of "pandering".
You can see below your maybe paraphrased not quoted Merriam Webster version. I just checked online again, the word pandering has very definitely more negative connotations than you seem to reflect.
The user KATE CURT sent the following message to you via Arkansas Online:
FYI: Pander according to Merriam Webster means "to do or provide what someone wants or demands even though it is not proper, good, or reasonable..". Yes I think when we pander to racists or when we pander to the wealthy by acting s if most Americans do not work or pay taxes we are doing something that is not proper, reasonable or good...
Make no mistake: I am extremely smart, Being a woman does not change this fact.
I called you ma'am as a form of respect for the female gender (I learned that from my mother and grandmother and granmama and Elvis). No where did i imply you were not smart or not intelligent in any form. After seeing that i had called you ma'am I then decided probably I should just call you Kate. The reasoning for this is I realized I could not be certian you were a woman and still cannot. A woman is touted as having the highest I.Q. in the world, i have no reason to not believe this and therefore sympathize with her accordingly. The "smartest" person I know personaly is a beautiful female with eidetic memory, she is a dedicated health professional. I not only sympathize but empathize with this person; but cannot be 100% certain she is a she. If she wants to be treated that way I have no problem with that. If she or any other female wants to be acknowledged as female yet treated as a man I have no problem with that either. Mostly there is no difference in how I treat women and men unless they desire to get some form of physical.

July 4, 2015 at 4:53 a.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

BBbendknee (BENNY BRAND) says...

You asked a question about a comment on cash and I am not sure which button I clicked to lose it. I respond belatedly. From my perspective and what I know to be true (and have even seen quickly quashed news reports of) is - counterfeit currency has become so prevalent in our economy as to match the greed in our hearts. Inflation rates, border security, reciprocal trade agreements with other countries etc. etc. are all directly respondent to our cash spending habits. The financial market, being a little beyond my capability and that of the majority of other people to assimilate; all we who live from month to month, check to check know is the fear that next month we might not meet our obligations. We do understand that the added penalties this entails will cause us to fall further and further behind each month as one default is stacked upon another until bankruptcy, which we cannot access because we are too poor. Then we become unwilling partners with those criminals who use such as us to sell there illegal wares and launder there ill gotten gains, effectively insulated themselves from prosecution or even detection. I admit I am rather rambling and long winded, and do dearly wish someone could just prove me wrong.

July 8, 2015 at 8:08 p.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

JakeTidmore (ANNELIESE MAUS) says...

Still attacking the messenger when you missed the main point of my first message - the power of the oligarchy in this country and around the world. I did err by saying "everyone" when I should have said "the vast majority" or left it unsaid. The bulk of consumption (70%) is done by the top 20% while the poor account for just 1.5% of the consumption. The middle class accounts for the rest. Overall consumerism has only slightly been reduced over the past 10 years.

September 18, 2015 at 3:16 p.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

Namsaev (ALLEN VEASMAN) says...

The founders of this country were wise in how the votes for the President and Vice President were allocated. But the method of how they are cast is woefully antiquated. The, for want of a better term, stupidity that has been exposed in the latest election needs to be squelched as soon as possible. In my opinion, and I am no one of importance, Article 2 Section 1, needs to be rewritten. I can see partially the logic that in a democracy popular vote could be thought of as the best way to go. But that would mean the states with the most people would have the most power. This is the way it is in the House which you serve. But all states should also be treated as equals, which is how the Senate operates.
Most states and the District of Columbia use the person with the most popular votes in that state get all the Electoral College votes. The problem with winner take all is the Electoral College vote allotment doesn’t come close to resembling the popular vote for the state. Take for example California. Clinton received 62% of the popular vote to Trump getting 33%. But she got all 55 of the Electoral College votes. In Texas Trump got 53% of the vote to Clinton getting 43%. But he got all 38 of the Electoral college votes. The State of New Hampshire, I believe, was the closest contest this year with Clinton winning 47.6% to 47.2%. The difference of .4% or 2,732 votes in a closer race could have meant winning or losing.

Only two states, Maine and Nebraska, do not use the winner take all method for awarding Electoral College votes. Maine and Nebraska use the "congressional district method", selecting one elector within each congressional district by popular vote and awarding two electors by a statewide popular vote. If I were the Prince of the Planet ALL the Electoral College votes would be allocated this way as this mirrors the forethought and wisdom of the founders when they were setting up the fledgling United States of America.

The method that would most closely resemble the popular vote would be a ‘proportional’ method. But just how close would you make it to the popular vote would probably boil down to whether you split a vote or not.

Again, if I were Prince of the Planet, I would still have Electors actually vote in the Electoral College. But they would only be bound to a particular candidate for the first round only. Second round they could vote for whoever they wanted to!

What some of the electors were subjected to leading up to actual Electoral College vote should be a felony.

December 20, 2016 at 10:52 a.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )