The officials and leaders of this city have ignored the Indy since it started. In case anyone that does not know the Indy was created because other local organizations were giving a pass on local dealings and only telling one side of things. So they started the Indy to counter things and boy that pisses off the establishment. Right on Pam keep doing what you do some of us do listen.
Mr K - according to employees at the Drake plant, with the flip of a switch, we can convert to natural gas from coal if the worthless EPA tries to shut down Drake. The turbines were supposedly updated and refurbished and should run twenty years or more. If not, by then, hopefully someone with common sense will be elected President and will take away the egregious powers of the EPA and the Springs can have low cost energy on a source that is predicted to last around 300 years.
I am NOT doing a hatchet job on Bonnie Smith - merely asking questions. If she can't answer them or if YOU cannot answer them, then get some education behind you and find out if or if not the plant can last that long. I talked to actual employees - and don't rely on a report that may or not be biased. I suggest you do the same thing.
The real question regarding Drake, Mr. Publisher, is do you approve of the Utilities lying to its customers by omission? You do a good hatchet job on Ms. Smith, but you are only killing the messenger. She never advocates for or against Drake. She only points out a small paragraph in the study that the Utilities have conveniently overlooked and ignored because it undercuts their argument for keeping Drake operational.
Perhaps you meant to address Eric Verloo who does advocate for decommissioning Drake. If that is indeed the case, you need to have your fact-checker go through your messages before you post.
We need more off leash areas in town. The Palmer Park Yucca Flats is great, but the Bear Creek dog park is WAY over used and the rest of the dog parks are insufficient, or downright sad.
Bonnie Smith - are YOU ready to pay MORE for your electricity? Perhaps up to 80% more? Consider that if Drake is taken off line - you will pay high prices for energy to heat your home. And if that comes to pass, folks will start heating with wood and other sources of energy and warmth. Do you really want that in this area? Who will pay for a new DRAKE? Hmmmm? And how much will it cost to build a new power plant? Hmmmm?
Gary - good points and something the people should listen to and think about before supporting yet another huge project - the Cit of Champions. If the current arenas can't make a go of revenue and income what will be the chances this CoC will do so? What makes the mayor think CoC will enhance revenue and jobs in the area?
Present your ideas to the city council and get them on record. They have given me food for thought.
As long as forestry replants the area where the trees were removed with native species, there should be no problem. I fight the battle every year with elm seedlings from neighborhood yards that invade my native tree and shrub stands. Their roots are next to impossible to remove and they are disease ridden. I would be happy to see them banned.
@ harley883 you must be a female who rides an 883 and I hope so because you stated you want to have fun and watch the Sheriff squirm. Perhaps your choice of words was poor or maybe not! Maybe you want to meet a Big Twin?
again you are spot on ms.duran...though a recall would be nice...we cant afford it...and its kind of fun to watch him squirm...whats 7 months?
You can only buy food with food-stamps, thanks to UPC codes. Point-of-sale systems are programmed to run separate totals for eligible purchases and ineligible products, and the food-card will only pay for eligible products.
Saving money on campaign is a great indicator and that party which spends least is worth attention. It is much better to drive this money on providing aid to those who live off of social security. Or it is a great idea to help people who have problems with student loans, http://northandloans.ca/ loans and others.
Publisher, you wrote, "Gina Davis - I suggest you offer to pay others' taxes first and then you can talk about raising them."
I suggest you learn to read, Publisher. First, the letter was written by Gina Douglas, not Gina "Davis." If it were anyone else I would have let it go by, but you are a publisher and ought to know better.
More important, nowhere does Ms. Douglas call for raising taxes. She merely points out you cannot get something for nothing, as ex-jailbird Doug Bruce seems to think.
This simple fact of life seems to have sent you into fits of apoplexy. Perhaps you find it soothing to vent your rage against the President, but Obama literally had nothing to do with the passage of TABOR.
another fine example why compassionate conservative is an oxymoron.
I'm guessing this person, like many around here, considers themselves to be religious as well... WOW.
Get out of the way - America the warmonger and troops being paid? Its YOUR money that is paying them idiot and it is OBAMA in charge for the last 6 years - he is the warmonger! Wake up.
And there are many on food stamps such as the DUDE in CA who surfs all day long and then goes and buys lobster with his food stamp money - and there are thousands like him.
We should be helping those who are hungry - chronic hunger is a problem in America but NOT helping those who abuse the system....and YOU know there are many like that.
At the dollar store recently where I shop, a woman came in with full tats on arms, legs, chest and neck and she used her food stamp card to buy anything but food - so don't tell us who pay for these food stamps that tats aren't a sign of abusers.
Instead, write local authorities and ask them to crack down on abusers. Tell them to get a job.
Gina Davis - I suggest you offer to pay others' taxes first and then you can talk about raising them. Right now man in the springs are hurting due to having their medical premiums doubled and their deductibles raised to a point they can't afford to pay that and the premiums.
Then there is the promise of higher electric rates due to Obama shutting down coal plants on which we have depended for energy for years. His words:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4 Yeah he wants to make electric rates skyrocket.
Now tell us where we get the money to afford all this? HUH?
Pam Zubeck and the Indy! We count on them for what is really happening!!!
Most of us pick it up off the rack which is why there are fewer comments.
“There is no way of knowing from this web page how many such donors did not make it into list” – Of course, but this information is provided to reveal who DID, and the numbers demonstrate they overwhelmingly support left-leaning ideology. Would you suggest that private donations represent the converse of this, and if so, why?
I’m certainly not desperate to restrict this discussion to the Koch’s, and wasn’t the one that mentioned them initially--that would be Ms. Brush--but why do liberals (including the Senate majority leader) find it okay to call out private citizens to such a ridiculous extent (Reid has done so at least 134 times) while neglecting to mention the contributions provided by donors--public and private--that support their causes? (no need to answer, we all know the definition of hypocrisy). This thread is tired; feel free to have the last word, and as always, thanks for engaging in animated debate...
Mr. Faltz, if I had written "conservative donors" then you would be justified in substituting "liberal donors" in that pesky third paragraph, but neither statement would be "absolutely accurate." On the contrary, both statements would be equally absurd. I named the Koch brothers because they are known to hide their donations, not because they are conservative. If liberal donors preferred to remain anonymous, there would not be so many listed on your website.
Although the Kochs ended up in 59th place on your list, the disclaimer also says, "this list does not include casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. He and his wife Miriam donated nearly $93 million in 2012 alone to conservative super PACs — enough to put him at No. 2 on this list." Which would, of course put the Kochs at 60th place, but more importantly, it undermines your argument that "the tangible, documented amounts show an overwhelming leftist bias," since the extra $93 million was not in the calculation. Furthermore, Adelson was mentioned only as one example of the large contributors who were not included in the survey because they are not what the website defined as "heavy hitters." There is no way of knowing from this web page how many such donors did not make it into list.
Finally, no one finds any fault with the Kochs' public donations. Which is why you are so desperate to restrict the discussion to them alone--so desperate to exclude the dark money from the debate, as if that excludes it from influencing politics in the real world. As long as the Kochs refuse to disclose the full extent their involvement they are fair game and will be singled out.
Mr. K, you suggest I have a reading comprehension problem when I fully understand the disclaimer--it’s my link after all—but must ask do you have a crippling aversion to facts, such as I've presented? Since you won’t divulge the Koch’s raking, I’ll finally do so; 59th seems awfully far down the scale for them to be as influential as you and others would suggest.
Do they keep some donations secret? Absolutely, as do the Dems; simply substitute “liberal donors” for “Koch brothers” in your third paragraph and it retains absolute accuracy. While the final amounts of shadow funds may be incalculable on both sides, the tangible, documented amounts show an overwhelming leftist bias, and big ca$h will be driving most campaigns (national and local) henceforth, but to single-out one family (who also previously donated to Reid and other Dems) is patently misleading and utterly disingenuous.
Mr. Faltz, you write, "I've noticed that you've conveniently decided to avoid discussing where in the rankings those naughty Koch's are on the list I provided."
Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? Twice already I have posted the disclaimer from your link. It does not list donations "to politically active dark money groups, like Americans for Prosperity, a group linked to the Koch brothers..." Those are the "naughty" donations, not the pittance they donate publicly.
The Koch brothers prefer to remain anonymous and to keep their donations secret, which makes their true financial impact incalculable. They also prefer to control how their money is used rather than just handing it over to the party. This way they can run commercials full of misleading half-truths and distortions, and the actual candidates can deny any involvement when the ads are exposed. Furthermore, it is their employment of such tactics that has earned the Koch brothers the enmity they deserve, not the size of their donations.
All content © Copyright 2014, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation