Home | Real Estate Search | Classifieds | Place an Ad | Public Notices | Galleries | Obituaries | Subscriber Services | Kingman Digital | Contact Us
Kingman Daily Miner | Kingman, Arizona

home : opinion : opinion April 29, 2016


2/25/2013 5:58:00 AM
Letter: Hillary makes a difference

King George III imposes restrictions, proclamations and taxation acts on the colonies: Proclamation Line of 1763; the Sugar Act (1764); The Stamp Act (repealed in 1766, replaced by The Declaratory Act); The Mutiny Act (1765); The Tea Act (1773); The Coercive Acts (1774); The Quebec Act (1774); The Conciliatory Propositions (1775 - arriving after the first shots are fired at Lexington).

"But what difference, at this point, does it make?"

In Texas' rebellion from Mexico (1836), Mexican dictator Santa Anna exterminates a garrison at the Alamo in San Antonio and another at Goliad suffers the same fate when most of the force was murdered after it surrendered.

"But what difference, at this point, does it make?"

Dred Scott vs. Sanford (1857) - Supreme Court, composed of seven Democrats, one Whig and one Republican, in the majority opinion, ruled that Dred Scott, being "property," was a slave and could not be a free man.

"But what difference, at this point, does it make?"

Abraham Lincoln, inaugurated on March 4, 1861, laid down basic principles: the Union was older than the Constitution, no state could leave the Union, the ordinances of secession were illegal, acts of violence to support secession were insurrectionary or revolutionary; he would maintain possession of federal property in the seceded states.

"But what difference, at this point, does it make?"

May 7, 1915, German submarine U-20 fired a torpedo into the "Lusitania." It went down in eighteen minutes, drowning 1,198 people, including 128 Americans.

"But what difference, at this point, does it make?"

Dec. 7, 1941, Japanese warplanes bombed the U.S. Naval Base at Pearl Harbor, in Hawaii, destroying most of the U.S. fleet and killing more than 2,000 sailors, soldiers and civilians.

"But what difference, at this point, does it make?"

Sept. 11, 2012, terrorists linked to al Qaeda storm the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing the U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans.

"But what difference, at this point, does it make?"

D.B. Mitchell

Valle Vista






    Most Viewed     Recently Commented
•   20-year sentence possible for murder in Yucca (2026 views)

•   ATV rider the focus of a complicated rescue effort (1579 views)

•   McCain fundraiser arrested following drug raid (1231 views)

•   Missing Kingman woman connected to man arrested for identity theft (1042 views)

•   Arsenic is not the threat we've been told it is (Guest Opinion) (615 views)



Reader Comments

Posted: Monday, March 18, 2013
Article comment by: Anson's Nephew

"So, as I stated and have for over fifty years I would like to see every drunk driver put to death and that is my opinion."

Since you have decided to post my opinion rather than what I have proposed as law (which has also been shown here) I will now go through it all again.

First DUI – Jail one year, vehicle impounded and sold, driver’s license suspended forever.

Second DUI – Death penalty, with the person who proffered the vehicle losing their driver’s license, their vehicle impounded and sold and a one year jail term.

“Did they even have DUI laws 50 yrs ago?”

The first “driving while under the influence of spirits” arrest was done in London in 1897. Norway was the first nation to impose an across the board DUI law in 1936. However in the United States each state, beginning with New York in 1910 and moving rapidly across the nation, put in place DUI laws. So yes, there were DUI laws fifty year ago.


Posted: Sunday, March 17, 2013
Article comment by: V Stokes

"So, as I stated and have for over fifty years I would like to see every drunk driver put to death and that is my opinion."

Hmmm...nothing about second offense there?

Did they even have DUI laws 50 yrs ago?


Posted: Sunday, March 17, 2013
Article comment by: Anson's Nephew

FLS

“… or that the person who sold them the booze should also be executed. That was what you would like to see.”

As usual you have misquoted me – why do you do that?

What I have said is that I would like to see on the second DUI that the drunk be put to death (I realize it will never happen because people (such as you) defend the rights of drunks to kill people. As to the person who provided the vehicle I have maintained the position that they should lose their vehicle (sold at auction), their driver’s license and serve a one year jail term. I have never advocated the death penalty for the vehicle provider.

“Wow AN, nice personal hit.......”

You’re welcome. Glad to see that one against you hit home after the disgusting attacks you make daily on others here.


Posted: Saturday, March 16, 2013
Article comment by: Frank Lee Speaking

@ansons nephew

"So it is not common sense to make an attempt to keep drunks off our roads? Astounding position."

Nope AN, I never said it was not common sense to keep drunks off the road. But a lack of common sense is demonstrated by someone who thinks the death penalty should be automatic for anyone who kills someone in a DUI, or that the person who sold them the booze should also be executed. That was what you would like to see. Run your ideas past a representative and see the reaction you get. I am sure thet they will not start laughing until you are out of earshot.

"I suspect you may be … well you know, because of your constant defense of drunks drivers."

Wow AN, nice personal hit.......Well this is the internet after all.


Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013
Article comment by: George III etc....what difference does it make? .....

well, here's a little about King George III - his mother, Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha Auerburg, could not speak a word of English. In the English form of government, George - who only gained the throne because his father died before gaining the throne - dismissed three governments until he found Lord North to be a man with whom he could work. Among others of stature, one of those - William Pitt the Elder - strenuously argued against suppression of the American colonists, with their just grievances. What difference does it make? Well, if you conclude that Obama has foreign roots, is dismissive of accountable Government, and is taking bold and historically unsupported actions against those who dissent.....it makes a lot of difference.

Posted: Friday, March 1, 2013
Article comment by: Anson's Nephew

@ FLS

“Yeah, yeah, and elsewhere at this website you also said: ‘Person who gave the drunk the vehicle loss of license for life, one year in jail, vehicle impounded and sold.’ Call a state rep. tell him your idea and see how far you get,”

I have written and proposed the very things I specified and neither one went anywhere – no surprise, people love to protect murdering drunks, as you do with the following, “Do you think, as I do, that murdering someone when stone cold sober is worse?”

“So when it is personal all common sense is tossed out?”

So it is not common sense to make an attempt to keep drunks off our roads? Astounding position. I suspect you may be … well you know, because of your constant defense of drunks drivers.

“Tell me, do you favor the death penalty for other crimes of murder as well?”

Yes, I do and what that has to do with the discussion about stopping drunk drivers from murdering innocent people escapes me, but does not surprise me.


Posted: Friday, March 1, 2013
Article comment by: Frank Lee Speaking

@ansons nephew

"So, as I stated and have for over fifty years I would like to see every drunk driver put to death and that is my opinion. Which obviously you are against because it oes not match your opinion."

Yeah, yeah, and elsewhere at this website you also said:

"Person who gave the drunk the vehicle loss of license for life, one year in jail, vehicle impounded and sold."

Call a state rep. tell him your idea and see how far you get,

So when it is personal all common sense is tossed out? Tell me, do you favor the death penalty for other crimes of murder as well? Do you think, as I do, that murdering someone when stone cold sober is worse?


Posted: Thursday, February 28, 2013
Article comment by: anonymous anonymous

Newt Gingrich saying anything about adultery is like the pot calling the kettle black! A serial adulterer would be wise to keep quiet about anyones immorality! As to McCain he cheated on his wife while she was sick and great irony is the lady waited on him faithfully all them years he was a POW and guess the moral majority believes in morality when it suits them, seems to me them marriage vows are made before god! Which means if they will lie to god whom am I for them to lie to! The real problem with republicans they think they own god, think their morality experts, saints but hate to bust their bubble but only one walked on water and his name was Jesus!

Posted: Thursday, February 28, 2013
Article comment by: Asnon's Nephew

“And anson, you want to ‘do away’ with drinkers??”

Yes, Teeje, I do. My first wife was murdered by a drunk driver who never served a day (plus it was his fifth drunk driving bust). So, as I stated and have for over fifty years I would like to see every drunk driver put to death and that is my opinion. Which obviously you are against because it oes not match your opinion.

“Geez, first its abortions, now the libs wanna kill adults??”

As always - if you have a problem with abortion, don’t have one. In all other cases mind your own business. And no, libs do not “wanna kill adults” – that is the mandate of the Republicans who send our troops to die in a war based on a lie from the only convicted criminal ever appointed to the White House. However THIS lib expressed his OPINION that he would like to see all drunk drivers erased from our nation – note MY OPINION which has nothing to with all libs.


Posted: Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Article comment by: Tj Denton

I cant talk about clinton because i think ol slick willy was a goid president, did more for the economy then the two idiots that have been in the office the last twelve years. And anson, you want to "do away" with drinkers?? Geez, first its abortions, now the libs wanna kill adults?? Progressive i guess

Posted: Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Article comment by: Anson's Nephew

“That IMO is a predator.”

So instead of having any ACUTAL facts (as your original post indicated) you are expressing your OPINION. Okay, got it. And we know that opinions are like … well you know. LOL-


Posted: Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Article comment by: Anson's Nephew

“My point was that there were many similarities of your comments of November 18, 2012 and that of article written by PT. Back then, the fee to use the Museum’s photos for commercial use was $10 per photo, not $100 as you continue to lie about.”

I would imagine that similarities are because Mr Taylor faced the same nonsense in 1994 that I did in 1990 with the only difference being the nasty woman I was dealing with demanded $100 per photo. Since you were not there I take exception to your continuing to call me a liar –and I am still amazed that the web-admin who b-slapped me for calling people liars allows you to continue to do so.

“’That false statement is what I was calling you out on, so you and P.T. can have a debate on what the actual fee was.”

No Mr Taylor and I will not debate the point and my statement is not false. He had his experience and I had mine – two different instances taking place years apart.


Posted: Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Article comment by: Nice Chuckle

@Stokes

"Also a serial adulterer....but then...he wasn't occupying the White House when he was doing it, was he?"

So, it is OK if you are not in the White House then? Seriously, don't get your knickers in a bunch, I was only pointing out that Clinton is just as deviant as others were, and are.


Posted: Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Article comment by: KDM online reader only

Perhaps that article by P.T. was from another newsletter. I just have a transcript of the article, not a copy of the original publication. See the article on the KDM website on 11/16/2012 New Brunswick for Old Downtown Renovations, murals part of new look for old Kingman downtown.

My point was that there were many similarities of your comments of November 18, 2012 and that of article written by PT. Back then, the fee to use the Museum’s photos for commercial use was $10 per photo, not $100 as you continue to lie about. That false statement is what I was calling you out on, so you and P.T. can have a debate on what the actual fee was.


Posted: Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Article comment by: V Stokes

@Nice Chuckle

"If Clinton is those, and he just might be, what would that make Newt Gingrich?"

Also a serial adulterer....but then...he wasn't occupying the White House when he was doing it, was he?

@AN

"Of course I cannot find any actual evidence of such – would you please provide proof? Thank you. "

Really? Really? Which thing are you talking about. He admitted to 2 affairs and denied another. So the serial adulterer is confirmed.

He settled out of court with Paula Jones on her sexual harassment suit for almost a million dollars. Does that sound like the actions of an innocent man. Remember what you (I believe it was you) said about Newtie and his payment for the ethics violation.

Lets not forget allegations of groping and rape. Seems like quite a pattern to me.

Would you feel better if I had said "possible" sexual predator? IMO, "probable" is the more appropriate term. Especially since he used his political position to satisfy his urges. First as Governor and then as President...at least in the admitted affairs. That IMO is a predator.


Posted: Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Article comment by: Nice Chuckle

"OK, I'll give you that, Clinton wasn't a CONVICTED criminal. But he was still a criminal, convicted or not."

Well, since he was not convicted, you cannot prove it since it never happened. Sounds like defamation to me.


Posted: Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Article comment by: No One No Where

@AN & V Stokes

OK, I'll give you that, Clinton wasn't a CONVICTED criminal. But he was still a criminal, convicted or not.


Posted: Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Article comment by: Anson's Nephew

Ms Athens

“ Benghazi had for months and months been saying they were in trouble there,…”

As were multiple embassies and consulates and each time the State Department went to Congress the Republicans denied funds for additional security and they did the same thing just weeks after thee Benghazi attack. So the fault lies, not with the president, but with the obstructionists Republicans who do not care that people die because of their actions.


Posted: Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Article comment by: Anson's Nephew

“Of course he is an admitted serial adulterer and probable sexual predator.”

Of course I cannot find any actual evidence of such – would you please provide proof? Thank you.


Posted: Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Article comment by: Nice Chuckle

@Linda

"You're committing that old FACTS sin again. Benghazi had for months and months been saying they were in trouble there, England had moved out, mayhem all around, build up of the enemy."

Kind of reminds one of what happened leading up to a certain day in September of 2001, right?


Posted: Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Article comment by: Nice Chuckle

@Stokes

"Of course he is an admitted serial adulterer and probable sexual predator."

If Clinton is those, and he just might be, what would that make Newt Gingrich?

LOL


Posted: Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Article comment by: Linda Athens

Schmo

You're committing that old FACTS sin again. Benghazi had for months and months been saying they were in trouble there, England had moved out, mayhem all around, build up of the enemy.

They begged for help up until the last minute. No help was sent. Obama, your fearless leader, did as he always does when you have to put on big boy pants and make big decisions. He said to Panetta, do whatever you need to do and then he left for bed.

As I watched Panetta testify, NOT ONE SINGLE TIME DID OBAMA CALL DOWN TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE ENSUING HOURS. NOT ONCE!! That is not an intelligence failure. That is an amateur at the helm who dumps everything on someone else. And those someone else's, starting with Hillary, did nothing - then spent two weeks lying about what happened. To date, we still have not gotten a straight story.

Here's another one. The dump of the prisoners - he is now blaming that on yet another woman - Janet Napolitano. He knew nothing about it.

Shades of Bill Clinton and Waco. He knew NOTHING. He ordered no tanks knocking down the buildings when the head dude WALKED into town alone every day and could easily have been picked up. Ask Janet Reno he said. It was all her doing.

These men use women as door mats. They are frauds and amateurs and users. You're being used AGAIN. You've been taken by the best. An amateur who is a pro at being an amateur.


Posted: Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Article comment by: V Stokes

@ No One No Where
As AN has explained, Clinton was not convicted of anything. It's quite obvious that he did indeed commit perjury when he said ""I did not have sexual relations with that woman" unless you think oral sex doesn't count.

Of course he is an admitted serial adulterer and probable sexual predator.


Posted: Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Article comment by: Joe Schmo

@OKR:

"Bush got arrested for driving drunk before he was a president, isn't a supporting argument for Obama's actions while he was the president.”

I agree it’s irrelevant to the argument. So let’s do an apples to apples comparison of Bush’s actions while he was president to those taken by President Obama.

Four Americans died on September 11, 2012 in our consulate in Benghazi, Libya due to terrorist actions.

3,000 people, the majority of them Americans, died on September 11, 2001 in the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and in a field in Pennsylvania due to terrorist actions.

In both cases there were intelligence failures that led to those disasters.

What I would have liked to have seen is for Republicans to get even 1/10th as worked up about the intelligence failures that happened on 9-11 in which thousands died, and for that matter, the intelligence failures that led to an unnecessary war in Iraq in which thousands died and a $1 trillion was wasted under Bush as they did over Benghazi under Obama in which four people died.

For the Republicans it’s all political theatre and faux outrage. It’s not about trying to find out the truth of what happened.


Posted: Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Article comment by: Anson's Nephew

@ NONW

“I seem to recall Congress convicting your Lord and Savior, William J. Clinton, of lying to them. Seems to me that would make him a convicted criminal as well.”

Nope, never happened, so I guess you recalled incorrectly.

And had it occurred (which it did not) it would have been AFTER President Clinton was in office, whereas The Criminal was one long before he ran for office.

Now, to make sure there is no confusion, President Clinton was impeached by a bunch of sanctimonious liars (see Lil Newtie Gingrich), and the Senate did not follow up and convict the president. It should be pointed out that impeachment is the same as being “accused of” but with no conviction it means less than nothing.

@ Ms Smith

“But, thank you for setting me straight!!!”

You are more than welcome and I am always glad to provide accurate information for those who are too “busy” to actually check on the people they vote for.

@ Teeje

“except a DUI isnt a felony anson.”

Did I ever say that it was? No matter how you attempt to spin it, a conviction on a DUI makes the individual a convicted criminal – what part of that don’t you understand?

“… and as someone who advocates upholding all laws as they are written, i would think that you would follow the letter of the law in regarding their crimes as misdemeanor, guess only when it suits your opinio aye bud?”

It has nothing to do with my opinion (except that I feel drunks should be done away for the benefit of the rest of us – THAT IS MY OPINION). The facts are both of those losers were convicted criminals and the first ever to be appointed to the highest offices in the land.



  - Page 1 -  Page 2



Article Comment Submission Form
Comments are not posted immediately. Submissions must adhere to our Use of Service Terms of Use agreement. Rambling or nonsensical comments may not be posted. Comments are limited to Facebook character limits. In order for us to reasonably manage this feature we may limit excessive comment entries.
Submit an Article Comment
First Name:
Required
Last Name:
Required
Telephone:
Required
Email:
Required
Comment:
Required
Passcode:
Required
Anti-SPAM Passcode Click here to see a new mix of characters.
This is an anti-SPAM device. It is not case sensitive.
   


Advanced Search

Find more about Weather in Kingman, AZ
Click for weather forecast



Find it Features Blogs Milestones Extras Submit Other Publications Local Listings
Real Estate Search | Classifieds | Place an Ad | Find Kingman Jobs | Kingman Chamber | e-News | Contact Us | RSS | Site Map
© Copyright 2016 Western News&Info, Inc.® The Kingman Daily Miner is the information source for Kingman and surrounding area communities in Northern Arizona. Original content may not be reprinted or distributed without the written permission of Western News&Info, Inc.® Kingman Daily Miner Online is a service of WNI. By using the Site, kdminer.com ®, you agree to abide and be bound by the Site's terms of use and Privacy Policy, which prohibit commercial use of any information on the Site. Click here to email your questions, comments or suggestions. Kingman Daily Miner Online is a proud publication of Western News&Info, Inc.® All Rights Reserved.


Software © 1998-2016 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved