Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

Comment Archives: stories: News: Opinion: Last 30 Days

Re: “Following Rankin’s lead

Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of this country make a mockery of the words on which it was founded.

Posted by alf on 07/31/2014 at 1:26 PM

Re: “What’s Walsh good for?

Walsh has disgraced himself and the office. (As if the office of U.S. Senator could be further tarnished !) The honorable thing for him to do would be to pull out of the race.

Schweitzer, as distasteful as he is to many (me included), should put his ego aside and forget about his non-starter angling for the Veep nomination and step in, when Walsh, we can only hope, slinks away in disgrace.

IMO, Schweitzer could thump Daines. He's probably the only Dem in the state that could, as far right as Montana has drifted in recent years.

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by alf on 07/31/2014 at 1:18 PM

Re: “What’s Walsh good for?

Would have been better for him just to tell the truth. He did what he was taught in the government indoctrination centers AKA public schools. Montana Union Boss: Plagiarism Better than Creationism…

0 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by niam on 07/31/2014 at 11:32 AM

Re: “What’s Walsh good for?

Good points.

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Greg Strandberg on 07/31/2014 at 10:11 AM

Re: “Exempt this

While this article is very funny in a sarcastic way, it totally misses the point of the ruling. The ruling does not say that the owners of Hobby Lobby do not have to pay taxes to the Federal Gov., even if some of their tax money is used to fund the very types of birth control methods that they morally object to. It only says that the Feds can not force them to spend some of their personal money on morally unacceptable methods of birth control. Whether they should be morally unacceptable is left to them to decide, on religious freedom grounds. But if the owners of Hobby Lobby morally objected to spending tax dollars on expanding the interstate highway, this case would have no baring.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Tim on 07/20/2014 at 4:09 PM

Re: “Exempt this

I find it sad that the author of this "trash" (article) would defame God, misuse scripture and taunt true Christians....but GOD said" there is a day reserved for his judgment" so I'll just let it go at that.

4 likes, 30 dislikes
Posted by Tony Hill on 07/17/2014 at 12:08 PM

Re: “Exempt this

2% of women in this country get abortions each year. I wish the plights of the other 98% got as much attention as them.

5 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by Greg Strandberg on 07/17/2014 at 8:08 AM

Re: “Exempt this

While I appreciate the humour here, you have misstated the Court's decision, which only limited the kinds of birth control Hobby Lobby will pay for. Those are mostly the ones used after conception occurs. Of course, this may be related to your comment that you don't bother to read, so perhaps you just based your opinion on a rumour.
I don't believe the decision also forces people who work at Hobby Lobby to stay there, which would be like slavery, sort of. So if you refuse to pay for your own abortion method, you are free to leave. Most people wouldn't do that because their wages are so much better than a lot of places.
Personally, I think birth control should not be controlled by the government telling everyone that the wholesale disposal of children is just the best thing that could possibly be. Hillary famously said she just "loved" Planned Parenthood, and those of us who do read know about the eugenics that were the foundations of it.
I do find it amusing that the people who are most vocal about the birth control issue are men. Wonder what your mother's decision would have been?

4 likes, 26 dislikes
Posted by Thinker on 07/17/2014 at 7:55 AM

Re: “Defining water’s future

If the EPA wants it, I'm against it!! Period.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Tim on 07/11/2014 at 4:33 PM

Re: “Defining water’s future

The EPA’s proposed water rule expands the agency’s control over natural and man-made streams, lakes, ponds, irrigation ditches, and wetlands. “If approved, this rule could allow the EPA to regulate virtually every PRIVATE body of water in the United States. Every private landowner who has water on their property needs to vocally oppose this EPA over reach. Their is a couple in WY who got the approval of the State of WY to build a small pond on their property. The EPA found the pond and told them it was illegal even though they had sate approval and all the permits. The EPA is threatening them with a fine of thousands of dollars a day. Just one of hundreds of similar examples around the country. If the EPA gets this approved, watch out. You personal property rights will take another big hit.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by jr2jr2000 on 07/11/2014 at 9:37 AM

Re: “Defining water’s future

,Alf - No logs go downriver from above S. Maries any more. The river hasn't changed though, except more and more of the hayfields have been cut into river lots, lots of lots, and more and more of the banks get rip-rapped or barbed to hold them in place - although actual natural river bank is harder to find, in places they're rip-rapping meadow ground that's a long way from where the bank used to be. Water skiers use the river constantly all summer, all the way to St. Joe City, and they cause much of the erosion. The river is navigable, the Coast Guard just couldn't "navigate" the political pressure from Benewah County's commissioner, so they abandoned the river. They just used the narrowest reading of the law, and hoped no one would notice.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Liz Codoni on 07/11/2014 at 9:33 AM

Re: “Defining water’s future

I worked for the Forest Service and lived in St. Maries for a couple years in the mid 1970s, but haven't been back in over 30 years. Do they still in the raft logs on the river ? If so. from how far upstream ? And if so, that would most certainly constitute "navigation" !

That's interesting that in Idaho the CG doesn't consider the St. Joe navigable, but around 1980 or so the Montana Supreme Court declared the Beaverhead (a much smaller stream that the St. Joe !) "a navigable stream", because, if I recall correctly, Lewis and Clark "navigated" it !

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by alf on 07/10/2014 at 3:01 PM

Re: “Defining water’s future

Over here in Idaho's panhandle, on the St. Joe River, we've seen the Coast Guard pull back from its responsibilities even to "navigable" waters. To save itself political flack, the Coast Guard decided that the St. Joe was no longer "navigable" past St. Maries, dropping about twenty miles of river up to St. Joe City, a small community that used to have a busy waterfront for all manner of craft "back in the days". The river along this stretch is still used by water skiers, etc. and is certainly "navigable", but the Coast Guard decided to pull back on the grounds that it no longer supported "commerce" beyond St. Maries (like the big steamers still pull in there?). The Joe was settled west to east, up the river by boat, and all travel was by water or foot till the railroad came through. The road came later.
The problem for the Coast Guard started when a jet boat bunch skipped #10 on the one-page Idaho form for water event permits ( #10 is the only section of the form in bold. It lists 4 issues that require a Coast Guard permit as well, and the St. Joe River between St. Maries and Calder scored a hit on all 4 points.) The boat bunch got caught out, and after the Governor and our US congressmen got involved, they got to race anyway, AS LONG AS THEY COMPLIED WITH A FULL EIS BEFORE THIS YEAR'S RACE. They would never have passed the EIS because the Joe has highly erosive banks, but, instead, the Coast Guard just slithered away last Dec., without mentioning it to the public, on the grounds that that stretch of the river was no longer used for commerce!
It was blatent politics, with no regard for the river itself (above Calder the river becomes Recreational and then Wild under the wild and scenic rivers act). The Joe is now unprotected by ANY public agency between St. Maries and Calder, except county law, and as it was county politicians who achieved this end, that means totally unprotected. Not what the Clean Water Act intended, but what was wrought by the second and third court rulings. Beyond disgusting!

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Liz Codoni on 07/10/2014 at 10:30 AM

Re: “Parade politics

Please, please, PLEASE tell me how I can get a t-shirt!! :-) This is a great story!!

Posted by Anthony Coggins on 07/07/2014 at 8:22 AM

Re: “Parade politics

Tp cool, i love it.

Posted by brantl on 07/07/2014 at 5:50 AM

Re: “Parade politics

How does one get the most awesome t-shirt ever printed?

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by bigp7099 on 07/06/2014 at 7:10 PM

Re: “Parade politics

Really great story and very funny.

Posted by weezilgirl on 07/06/2014 at 12:41 PM

Re: “Parade politics

This is awesome. Bravo to the green gay loggers for Jesus.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Andrea Ploscowe on 07/06/2014 at 12:33 PM

Re: “Parade politics

Awesome story.

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by dp on 07/06/2014 at 8:19 AM

Re: “Parade politics

Very nicely done. Followed the rules, didn't try to muscle anyone, and helped the food bank as well. Trifecta?

And a belated Happy Independence Day!

9 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by SFAW on 07/06/2014 at 7:40 AM

© 2014 Missoula News/Independent Publishing | Powered by Foundation