Local comments suggested that Fredenburg was drunk that night. If that was true, and he was drunk enough not to follow a command to stop, it seems the first shot might have been self defense. It seems that was the fatal shot. The others I would question.
I hope this woman has the sense to stop having children. She's not mature enough to handle her own life.
What a novel idea! Picking up trash! If a bunch of us had not been doing that all our lives in every community we have lived in, we'd be really impressed.
Next thing you know you'll be bragging about how YOU invented GIVING BAAAACK to the community, ignoring the millions of people who have always done that without all the self important attention getting.
How much worse could it get? The latest projection is that with our resident population around 1 million, many of those adults exempt from taxes, and many more being minors not paying tax, and a lot of folks at the poverty level, who don't have much to tax and a projection that shortly 25% of Montana's population will be over 65, ostensibly not earning an increasing wage income and not having the resources, like Ms Renne, to take the major greed hits of government bureaucrats, what will be the result?
Add to that a high percentage of Montana veterans who can't find a job, just like a lot of other people, or will be unable to earn a living due to disability who likely won't be able to afford property to tax and we're seeing a train wreck heading at us. And what will everyone do with their college educations, when there are still no jobs?
Shortly there will be no "Montanans" whose families have lived here for five and six generations. This will be the wealthy side of California, California having been vacated to make room for illegals and liberals who believe the money pot is endless. Property owning taxpayers in Montana will pay for that, forwarding address Mississippi or West Virginia.
Listen to the hypocrisy of Tester, whose ad goes on and on about inheriting the land while everyone is being drained of resources by overpromises by such people as Tester. The overpromised benefits to our veterans stands at over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, all of it UNFUNDED. There is no way we can afford that with all the other taxing entities, but taxpayers have nothing to say about it, while Tester, et al, pander for votes, and anyone who points out the obvious problem is accused of not being patriotic. The ten vets in my family who fought from the Phillipines to Omaha Beach and beyond would have been as offended by the idea of bankrupting the country in the name of patriotism and vote buying as I am. It's not what they risked their lives for.
But I have an idea. Why don't we let the Polson Library take over the state, and all of the property? Then everything will be "free!" Do you hear me? It's all "FREE"!!!!!!!!!
Let's all meet at the Library and see a "free" movie with the "free" Kool Aid.
Don't worry, be happy!
Gee, rollinsmt, you'd think that would have been included in the story. Wonder why not? What else do you know?
The story as written was rather misleading. It made her look bad, the obvious issue of over-appraisal aside.
How will we ever solve problems if we cannot get and deal with accurate facts?
So, while we're computing payback, especially if you paid the whole cost instead of using the grant of other people's money and other people's taxes, should we also think about what the solar panels will add to the cost of replacing a roof, which in many cases is done every 20 years? Or more often if damaged in a hail or wind storm or a tree (we have lots of those) falling on a house?
Awhile back I read an article that claimed solar panels are not covered under regular homeowner's insurance. If that is still true, the payback may take forever, or cost way more that it claims to save.
So many times our eco crazies leave out many of the real cost considerations and distort the reality.
I hope if you do use solar panels you will try to find some made in America and NOT in China. But I understand that may be difficult to do.
Well, old soil guy, that's a good question. It did say "the family" sold it, so her share is assumed to be less than the total.
Then there's the question of taxes. Ya think there might have been some of those?Inheritance tax and tax on the sale?
Sounds like the family deal might not have considered all the problems involved.
There was an article written by a local school journalism student in the paper recently that suggested the community of Rollins' income level made it just about povertyville.
It left out the consideration of assets, which in Rollins are quite significant for many folks. I believe it was taken from the Census, which doesn't count people who reside elsewhere, like in Arizona or California, and are absent from their very expensive vacation properties in Rollins. They don't get counted in both places, and asset levels are not disclosed in the Census.
In 2011 dollars, the real estate that cost $10k in 1959 would cost about $62k today. The cost of the house was additional.
But I must ask, why in the world would anyone think that crying fixes anything?
All Comments »
Missoula News/Independent Publishing |
Powered by Foundation