Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: News

Re: “Unconventional times

"Vote Drumpf - at least you won't be lied to."

While not a perfect organization, Politifact would vehemently disagree.

And his numbers there are fare worse when compared with Hillary.

What say you, truth works?

Posted by SPQR on 07/29/2016 at 7:37 PM

Re: “Unconventional times

Please list all of Hillary's accomplishments, with verifiable links, to support your claim. And please include the Clinton Foundation that for some reason wasn't mentioned once during the DNC.

Posted by niam on 07/29/2016 at 3:55 PM

Re: “Unconventional times

After a long life spent as an Independent/Socialist, Bernie became a Democrat one year ago for the sole purpose of running for president. He already had everything he needed to run a brilliant third-party campaign, but he opted for two-party politics and he lost. Because of his efforts, the Dems are more progressive on a handful of policy ideas and that's great. His followers should be proud. But booing the nominee after the fact or running off to a third party at this late stage serves no one but Trump and smacks of the same kind nihilistic permanent-protest mode of the Tea Party.

The DNC had their favorite because their favorite had been sheparding the party for decades. They didn't thumb the scale or stuff the ballot. They bitched to each other in private about an insurgent candidate. That's not corruption; it's a political law of gravity. I'm not being cynical to say so and you're not naive to want a more progressive left.

Strong and dynamic parties resist or absorb insurgencies. Weak and brittle parties are prey to them. That's why Sanders left a mark but Trump burnt the place down. I'm not sure parties are really good for anything except providing a shortcut to take over a democracy. But I do know Hillary Clinton remains the best candidate to lead the planet. And this is just as true now as it was when there were 487 people running.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Karl Miller on 07/29/2016 at 2:40 PM

Re: “Unconventional times

At least Trump admits who he is and thats a great start because we've got zero honesty now.

Anyone thinking straight and living in reality would rather support truth over lies. Unless of course they're a liar themselves.

Has anyone ever known anyone that lied to their face? sugar coated everything only to find out later on they actually thought differently? thats a two faced person a liar that cannot be trusted.

Has anyone ever asked someone if they looked good and everyone tells them they look great? when they didn't? Anyone that wants an honest relationship and one that you feel safe in because they tell it to you like it is will know that the best friend for life will be the one that says no you look bad in that outfit you should change because thats real and real is genuine.

Not rocket science but now we have been groomed and coached to live in a world when someone tells it like it is and says brash statements that hurt your feelings when they are true of course goes under appreciated.

This is systemic - why so many complain in divorce court saying I never knew you felt this way? the partner responds - well its because you always flipped out when I told you so I just decided to not say anything or lie so we didn't fight. Our country is in divorce court at the highest levels of our government against the people. You wonder why we're all afraid of our government. Thinking they're up to no good. Its simply because people choose to be lied too instead of the truth. Why is that because people cannot handle the truth. We did it to ourselves.

Vote Trump - at least you won't be lied too. Maybe it will give everyone a chance to grow up and learn that truth may hurt sometimes but in the long run its healthier for everyone.

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by truth works on 07/29/2016 at 10:45 AM

Re: “Unconventional times

FACTS: Democrats supported and pushed for a bill that stops americans from filing a lawsuit against Monsanto. Democrats supported and pushed for a bill to allow fracking.

Monsanto? Fracking? they've got some large set to point their fingers at republicans and or even say they're any better or different.

Any bleeding heart granola eating Missoulian preaching about organic and environment that votes for a democrat is a fraud.

3 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by fraud on 07/29/2016 at 8:59 AM

Re: “Etc.

We need hundreds of more police. One on every corner both at the city of Missoula and the University all on rotation so no one gets too comfortable. Do you know how many pedophiles judges are helping to get off? how many rapists are getting deferred and suspended sentences? Our children are no longer safe with the bleeding hearts working so hard to put them in danger. We need more police.

Posted by more police on 07/29/2016 at 8:50 AM

Re: “Tourists gone wild

Went to Zion last June.. felt like I was at Disney World.. it was over-crowded with busses all over and more people than it could handle. I was there in 1998 and in march of 2010.. March is a good month if you go in early march.. I have now vowed to go off season from now on. Going to Yellowstone in Sept, after labor day. Hoping that will be late enough to avoid crowds.

6 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Steve on 07/29/2016 at 8:47 AM

Re: “Etc.

If the police force didn't need the new officers, why are they asking for them?

If they're not asking for the new officers because of the downtown transient problem, then what are they asking them for?

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Greg Strandberg on 07/28/2016 at 11:32 PM

Re: “Unconventional times

This Bernie supporter will be voting for Trump.

2 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Greg Strandberg on 07/28/2016 at 11:29 PM

Re: “Wilderness

By the way, Alf, I agree with your concerns about commercialization of the Wilderness. I would be happy to lobby for the exclusion of commercial operations and I'll bet most cyclists would agree.

Posted by Out N'About on 07/28/2016 at 5:21 PM

Re: “Wilderness

Alf: Indeed the Wilderness Act (WA) is full of intent. It defines federally-designated Wilderness, in total, as follows:

"A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value."

We can discuss the meaning of "primitive" with regard to recreation, but excluding a bicycle while allowing a host of other demonstrably non-primitive technologies is an immediate hypocrisy. Overall, the intent and aspirations of the WA are entirely consistent with the rugged, individual type of recreational endeavor that is represented perfectly by foot, horse or bicycle travel.

But then we arrive at the term "mechanical transport," and this is where the opposition to the bill generally tries to hang its hat. Thankfully, we have a definition of mechanical transport contained in the Code of Federal Regulations that was written to reflect and implement the intent of the WA. That definition is:

"Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water, on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device."
- 36 CFR § 293.6(a) (1973), formerly 36 CFR § 251.75 (1966)

So, what's "abundantly clear" is that we do not have a cut and dry exclusion of bicycles, unless we are also prepared to exclude a lot of other currently allowed technologies. But we can certainly have a worthwhile debate about the risks and rewards of expanding the constituency of Wilderness advocates to include backcountry cyclists by allowing them at least some level of access to these public lands that were set aside for recreation as well as preservation.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Out N'About on 07/28/2016 at 4:40 PM

Re: “Wilderness

Stoll and "out n'about" ought read the Wilderness Act. If they bother to. they'll see that although bicycles, wheelbarrows and chainsaws may not be specifically addressed, the intent that they not be allowed in designated Wilderness is abundantly clear.

In maintaining the status quo and pandering to commercial vested interests by allowing the continuation of domestic livestock grazing, aircraft landings, and commercial outfitters to maintain caches and semi-permanent camps in classified Wilderness, the intent of the Wilderness Act has already been over-compromised. We don't want or need it to be further eroded.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by alf on 07/28/2016 at 3:18 PM

Re: “Unconventional times

Now that Madame Clinton has been officially coronated, it boggles my mind that with the U.S.'s population being something on the order of 320-330 million people, the "best" (?) presidential candidates the two major political parties could come up with are Il Duce Trumpolini and Lady McDeath.

It's my considered opinion (and there's plenty of evidence to support it) that both are cynical and hypocritical, avaricious and rapacious. Both have monumental egos; they're both absolutely amoral, and both are serial, pathological liars. They're sleazy and untrustworthy. In short -- with apologies to all things that slither, creep and crawl -- I consider them both contemptible, reprehensible reptiles. Those are just a few of their more obvious defects. I could go on and on, but you get the idea. But in today's world, I think those may very well be requisites for anyone who hopes to hold high office, public or private.

Maybe the nomination of these two unworthies and the processes by which they got to where they are says something deeper and darker, not only about our broken and failed political system, but about our country as a whole.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by alf on 07/28/2016 at 2:35 PM

Re: “Unconventional times

BTW here's a more direct link to the movie. Clinton Cash - Official Movie Premiere - YouTube…

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by niam on 07/28/2016 at 1:35 PM

Re: “Unconventional times

Thanks for the Clinton Cash link. As a Libertarian I do vote for who ever supports less govt and stands by our Constitutionally protected rights. In other words anyone who keeps their nose out of my life and their hands out of my pockets! Right now there's no one who comes close, Gary Johnson included. Hitlery is definitely out! PERIOD. Hitlery. an elected official who did nothing, was in bed with one and appointed by and endorsed by another lying despot and has a questionable foundation I'd be brain dead to vote for her!

3 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by niam on 07/28/2016 at 1:33 PM

Re: “Unconventional times

Who could dream up 2 worse candidates then these two? Take an hour to watch this documentary "Clinton Cash" . On one hand we have the most corrupt and dishonest candidate in modern history, and on the other hand we have foot in the mouth Trump. Link is below.

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by jr2jr2000 on 07/28/2016 at 12:24 PM

Re: “Wilderness

When someone, or some group of organizations, writes "an assault on the very idea of wilderness," they either haven't researched the Wilderness Act, or they haven't read the proposed legislation or they are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of their followers.

I encourage everyone to read the text of the bill at the link below and then you can begin asking why some opponents would use such hyperbole and misinformation to describe such a benign proposal. While I can understand the desire to incite their fans, generate membership revenue and defend their personally favored form of outdoor recreation, none of that is a very good basis for setting public policy. Of course, the backers of the bill are also selfish in the sense that they would like to visit at least some of the land in the manner they enjoy. But if that manner is as quiet, human-powered, sustainable and environmentally benign (or more so) as currently allowed uses (foot and hoof), then we should all endeavor to accommodate it on at least some of our publicly-owned Wilderness lands.

0 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Out N'About on 07/28/2016 at 10:03 AM

Re: “Postal service

Randy F - thanks for your thoughts on this. Lots of differing opinions, I guess. I had been wondering what the actual LAW (if any) states about this issue. Years ago, when I distributed political flyers, we were told not to put them in mailboxes, but rather rubber band or tape them to the door knob, but even then we never learned whether this was LAW or just a "guide" from the post office. Using the USC you listed, it states a box erected for receiving official stamped mail from the post office cannot be used [in any way - in or on top of or taped to] for un-stamped items. However, the post [that the box sits on] is NOT considered part of the box. So, there we have it! Thanks!…

Posted by ol' az hippie chick on 07/23/2016 at 11:48 PM

Re: “Postal service

Randy F - thanks for your thoughts on this. Lots of differing opinions, I guess. I had been wondering what the actual LAW (if any) states about this issue. Years ago, when I distributed political flyers, we were told not to put them in mailboxes, but rather rubber band or tape them to the door knob, but even then we never learned whether this was LAW or just a "want" from the post office. Using the USC you listed, it states a box erected for receiving official stamped mail from the post office cannot be used [in any way - in or on top of or taped to] for un-stamped items. However, the post [that the box sits on] is NOT considered part of the box. So, there we have it! Thanks!…

Posted by ol' az hippie chick on 07/23/2016 at 11:47 PM

Re: “Postal service


DMM 508.3.1.2 states;

Door slots and nonlockable bins or troughs used with apartment house mailboxes are not letterboxes within the meaning of 18 USC 1725 and are not private mail receptacles for the standards for mailable matter not bearing postage found in or on private mail receptacles. The post or other support is not part of the receptacle.

Also, I failed to find any reference to a 15 foot "zone" leading to and exiting from a mailbox. There is a section that states that the area around the delivery point should be such so that the carrier is not impeded from mak9ng the delivery, but there is no specific distance stated.

I've got 32 years of service with 20 in Business Mail Entry and Mail Classification. I am sure that you know that these activities involve a lot of DMM research and interpretation. Only mentioning it so that you don't think I am just some nut, shooting off my mputh without knowing what I am talking about.

ol az hippie chick, You erect a mail receptacle with the sole intention of receiving US Mail. The USPS retains exclusive right to access that mailbox and excludes any others from doing so. Yes, you bought the box, yes, you set it up and, yes it is on your property. However, it is for your convenience to have a mailbox at your residence so you do all of that to make it happen.

The simple act of erecting a mail receptacle constitutes your acceptance of USPS and USC rules and regulations regarding its use.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by RandyF on 07/23/2016 at 4:01 PM

© 2016 Missoula News/Independent Publishing | Powered by Foundation