Sunday, May 19, 2013
Comment Archives: Stories: Columns
Re: “Pitching City Council! to HBO”
Robert Redford??!! I'm flattered but my wife won't stop laughing!
Posted by
Scott Hente
on 05/01/2013 at 12:31 PM
Re: “Pitching City Council! to HBO”
Will it be a comedy, drama, chick flick, gay flick, tragedy, or action adventure series?
Posted by
TejonTech
on 05/01/2013 at 10:02 AM
Re: “Pitching City Council! to HBO”
John, obviously you're not a member of the CSA! ;-)
"City Council" would probably play well here in COS as a reality show, but I don't think the rest of the country's viewers would get our sense of humor.
Posted by
bill.guman
on 05/01/2013 at 9:39 AM
Re: “Where tax dollars go, more gun-law debate, and praise for John Morse”
To Steve Milligan: Your letter is hilarious as are your reasoning skills. This is my personal favorite: "We don't really need to shift more income to the 1 percent." This presupposes that 'you' have the income in the first place and that the 1% don't.
The reality is the 1% already have the income because they earned it. You do know that envy is one of the seven deadly sins? Theft is right up there as well.
Posted by
siggie
on 05/01/2013 at 9:35 AM
Re: “Where tax dollars go, more gun-law debate, and praise for John Morse”
To John Palan: I believe that is called torturous logic.
Posted by
siggie
on 05/01/2013 at 9:26 AM
Re: “The irony in Bush's new library”
Hightower, if you had 1/10th the integrity and class of any Bush, you might not be the sniveling communist that you are. You mention WMDs as your reason for calling GW a liar. I guess that would apply to 99% of congress that believed the same thing. Perhaps it was the hundreds of thousands of Kurds that were terminated by what - weapons of individual destruction?
Additionally, to use the term "gut" referring to the need to fix the social security system proves you to be an outright liar.
The only "fraud" in the room is you. You are an absolute joke.
Posted by
siggie
on 05/01/2013 at 9:19 AM
Re: “A lesson from Jan Martin’s fate”
Wah wah, we have lost countless years of pointy headed political genius, wah wah. This is one of those politician becomes media hack-job whack job deals, right?
Posted by
Stacy in Woodland Park
on 04/30/2013 at 9:59 PM
Re: “Dining at Carlos', gratitude for gay people's contributions, and the gun debate”
siggie, your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. I am not debating you. I am correcting you. I am not doing it for your benefit. I am doing it for the benefit of any reader who might make the mistake of believing you know what you are talking about.
You write, "I suspect that since you read something..." If I had only read one study of the subject, that would still be one more than you have ever read, but I happen to have made a study of it. On the other hand, you also began your original statement with the same silly phrase, "I suspect..." and now you wonder why your opinions are automatically dismissed! An opinion is only worth something when the opiner actually knows something about the subject. Since you know nothing about the subject your opinion is as worthless as your suspicions.
Posted by
Mr. K--
on 04/29/2013 at 5:34 PM
Re: “Dining at Carlos', gratitude for gay people's contributions, and the gun debate”
"The 2nd amendment says "WELL REGULATED" The founding fathers failed to define that." And the second clause of the second amendment says "shall not be infringed", but I notice very few people have that figured out.
Secondly, there is no need for a background check for a job. I got my last job w/out even so much as an employment application being submitted.
Lastly, polls are good for whomever commissions them. I do not believe that anywhere near 90% of the US populace believes we should have "enhanced" background checks for the purchase of buying firearms. When a background check fails to stop the next shooting, who or what will be your bogeyman?
Posted by
None of the Above
on 04/28/2013 at 5:37 PM
Re: “A Senate in the gun lobby's grip”
It really isn't about safety from guns...it is about control of citizens and disarming them so they can't rebel against Obama's new world order when it is announced on the very day we realize they have all the ammunition.
Posted by
TejonTech
on 04/28/2013 at 7:05 AM
Re: “A Senate in the gun lobby's grip”
None of the recently passed laws in Colorado would have done anything for the kids at Sandy Hook and neither would any of the bills recently debated in the US Senate. The anti-civil rights agenda of gun grabbing Gabby is based upon emotion, not fact. As Obama is fond of saying, if we could save just one life... Well, look at recent news stories (not in national media, you have to search local media) and see how many people's lives are saved because of armed citizens who save lives daily. Then let's discuss gun grabbing Gabby's agenda again.
Posted by
Rob Harris
on 04/27/2013 at 9:33 PM
Re: “A Senate in the gun lobby's grip”
It is interesting on this blog that when faced with the simple truth that these gun laws would not have stopped any of the tragedies like Gabby Gabby, they punch the 'dislike' button like stomping their feet and say ' I want the world to be different' without offering any solution but the path of ineffective legislation. Do any of you liberals have anything intelligent to say more than just your immature foot stomping?
Posted by
TejonTech
on 04/27/2013 at 3:52 PM
Re: “A Senate in the gun lobby's grip”
Wow bunny, that could be, hands down, the best post I have seen on any subject.
Well done!
(I don't know about golf being a vice, however.)
Posted by
siggie
on 04/27/2013 at 3:41 PM
Re: “A Senate in the gun lobby's grip”
I have been on both sides of this issue. I have been victimized yet I still believe in everyones right to bear arms and protect themselves if they so choose. I also believe those people who do not wish to own guns should have their choice without trampling on other peoples rights. Just because something bad happened to me, I do not want to punish other people by taking their rights away. Gun control laws do not work and they do nothing to resolve the real issues. I feel for the injuries and the loss that people have suffered at the hands of someone who is criminally ill. I've been there. Does this mean that guns should be outlawed or tighter gun control laws are going to help anybody? No. My perpetrator as well as every other mass shooting that I have investigated had one thing in common. They were all on psychotropic drugs. My perpetrator, who I had lived with for 10 years, changed overnight. Within 30 days of being on psychiatric medication for depression he was unrecognizable. He went from being depressed to trying to kill me and sitting in the corner rocking back and forth afterwards looking like a madman, hair unkempt and glazed over eyes. We got him titrated off his medications and he went back to being normal and depressed, but not a madman. To this day, he said that he can't describe in words what those drugs made him think and feel in his mind. He said he truly felt crazed and couldn't believe his actions. Perhaps we should look at our own society and our underlying issues. America is a hedonistic society that wants to avoid any type of personal displeasure. We use drugs, alcohol, tv, violent games, sex, shopping, eating, golf, and just about every vice you can think of to avoid feeling uncomfortable in any way. Perhaps we should each learn individually how to stop avoiding emotional discomfort so we will no longer act out on others or ourselves or use mood altering chemicals including pharmaceuticals to try to deal with everyday life. We have become a society with no coping skills and we are hurting each other because of it. We drug our children with Ridalin when they do not behave properly because it makes teachers and parents uncomfortable. We drug our soldiers so our government/society doesn't have to be accountable to what we've done overseas. We lack principles to live by and so drive it away with our hedonistic behaviors that create great pain and suffering. This is the root of our problems. Not guns.
Posted by
bunny
on 04/27/2013 at 1:46 PM
Re: “Dining at Carlos', gratitude for gay people's contributions, and the gun debate”
MDT: Clean your own shotguns. I clean mine. (The only guns I own.)
Your 3rd influence "who is asking the question" was covered in "how the question was worded".
As to random sampling, I took several statistics classes in college and am well aware of the requirements of a "valid" poll. Do you think Bob was referencing a scientific poll?
I probably agree with most of what you say on guns. My problem is with the 'big government' types gradually yet relentlessly taking away our freedoms.
Posted by
siggie
on 04/27/2013 at 1:42 PM
Re: “A Senate in the gun lobby's grip”
Giffords was doing her elected job when a bullet robbed her of her career and many months of life. She lives with the knowledge that a staff member lost his life protecting her. She's earned her opinion on gun control in a way few people have. Same for her husband.
This is not a liberal/conservative issue. Ask President Reagan's press secretary James Brady. As he said in a radio interview, "It's hard to forget you've been shot in the head."
Posted by
Clara McKenna
on 04/27/2013 at 10:42 AM
Re: “Dining at Carlos', gratitude for gay people's contributions, and the gun debate”
Oh and one more thing Siggie, in your first comment you said... "Polls are heavily influenced by two things. How the question is worded and how the question is interpreted." That is correct, you failed to mention a third, polls are also influenced by who is asking the question. A fourth would be is it random or not, that is why the online poll you cited is not really valid since it was not a "random sampling of voters"
Posted by
MDT
on 04/27/2013 at 7:40 AM
Re: “Dining at Carlos', gratitude for gay people's contributions, and the gun debate”
Ok Siggie HERE is my position on guns since you apparently KNOW my position, I think that yes, you should get a background check on the sales of guns, retail, gun shows whatever. I NEED to get a background check to get a JOB, sometimes to access housing or whatever, so why should someone not need one when purchasing something that can blow my head off? Whats the problem if they have nothing to hide? What are they afraid of? The 2nd amendment says "WELL REGULATED" The founding fathers failed to define that. If we consider weapons available at the time, then we should all only be allowed muskets. I think the purchaser of the guns should pay for the background check. Why should I as a taxpayer pay for that background check? Can we AGREE that taxes are high enough?? As far as the cry that you shouldn't have to pay to access a right, well many on the right want Picture IDs for voting, and expect someone to pay to get an ID to use that right, whats the difference? As far as clip size, it really doesn't matter to me, if you need 20 rounds to hunt an elk, that doesn't make someone a bad person or a threat to me, just makes them a lousy sport hunter and maybe they should change hobbies, I seriously doubt that limiting rounds is going to make much difference in the large scheme of things, so I would not be in favor of that. As far as assault weapons, I really don't take a position on that, I don't see the thrill, but it doesn't matter to me. But maybe we SHOULD allow tanks and bazookas too, following the logic of gun advocates. The thing we ALL need to agree on is where the line is, at least we need to agree to disagree.
So, I think we disagree on needing background checks, and most likely agree that bans on assault weapons and rounds is not going to do much so why bother. Can we agree that everyone should have tanks and bazookas too? Know where I can buy one? I will be glad to get a background check and I will even pay for it. Why don't you come over and help me clean my shotguns, its way over due!!
Posted by
MDT
on 04/27/2013 at 7:30 AM
Re: “Dining at Carlos', gratitude for gay people's contributions, and the gun debate”
MDT: stuck in the middle? Doubtful. You state "...never said what position I take." I believe you are making it quite clear.
And for clarification ...... As a Libertarian, I decry the loss of rights regardless of which party is responsible.
Funny you should mention "women's rights". I suspect you mean abortion? Is that a right? Before you get all 'high and mighty' and begin your lecture, I take the libertarian position on abortion. I have stated my opinion on the subject many times. 1st tri: okay. 2nd tri: subject to reasonable discussion. 3rd tri - only in the most extreme cases.
Posted by
siggie
on 04/27/2013 at 7:11 AM
Re: “Pitching City Council! to HBO”
C'mon, Bill- it's still the longest running tragicomedy in local history. We should be proud that we each had bit parts in the show years ago. And Scott - who else could play you? Maybe the young DeNiro "You talkin' to me??!!"