I got one question that maybe some of you can answer. If Clinton had really done all these horrible things why hasent she been convicted? Just saying innocent till proven guilty is still part of the American code. Is it not? Now before the " Right" jumps all over me for being "liberal" I didnt vote for Clinton or Trump I thought they both were the worst people in this Country to bring to the front. In my opinion Clinton had nothing to offer but what was in her baggage and Trumps ideas are ludicrous in this day and age. Draining the Swamp of Snakes and filling it with Alligators ant going to accomplish anything but more of the same that got us here.
Mary J Talbot: Good letter, but you had best send it to Lois "Absent" Landgraf as well.
Fred Kormos: So what? The Democrats have a long history of racism and misogyny, as statist tend to do, since actual freedom is anathema to them, regardless of being left or right.
Bob Armintor: Trump University has nothing to do with national security. Get your brain straight? Fat chance.
J.T. Welch: Get lost, comrade. You have no frickin' clue about much of anything. Try supporting freedom instead and maybe you'll eventually get educated enought to understand why it is the superior path.
Sally Alberts: Have a binky for your ridiciculous and infantile whining. You sound like you honestly believe that there's a serial rapist who hates anyone not WASP behind every tree. Grow Up!
Jim Bensberg: Ride all you want, but police your own, expecailly the idiots going way too fast on the crotch rockets up and down both Academy and I-25.
Bailey Thomas: Wrong question, posed by someone who doesn't understand economics. The better one to ask is why can't nations settle their differences in the sports arenas rather than the battlefields?
Mimi Vacher: Have a binky and grow up.
since we couldn't handle a candidate with a personal server... we get president elect p***y grabber. the rest is debunked garbage... find a source of news that involves facts. we cannot be living in a post factual society... come on people.
I can understand the Trump bashing, yet I cannot understand how anyone can think Clinton was a suitable alternative. Backing a pathological liar that has been involved in nearly a dozen sizeable "scandals" and who has left a trail of bodies behind her in every pursuit just makes no sense.
why were we in Iraq again... oh yeah, W the torturer lied us into a un-necessary war. Why did W the torturer kiss the Saudi's ass... I mean ring / cheek... ??? why did W the torturer send all his Saudi buddies home the day after 911... ??? every president has considered Saudi Arabia as an ally in the region. perhaps that will change when gump becomes prez... he will just steal oil from the afghan's... the spoils of war... right???
Agree about most of the Bernie stuff though.
Under President Obama (who I voted for twice) we've sold about $110 billion of military weaponry (by far the most in our 70+ year alliance with the country) to Saudi Arabia- the closest nation the world has to being a true Caliphate. We toppled foriegn and soveriegn governments for selective economic interests, and groups like ISIS have filled the void of leadership.
It would have been great to not have Trump in the White House. When it became apparent that the DNC had corrupted the primary process (this has since been verified, even though we all really knew all along), effectively stealing the nomination from Bernie- where was the outrage? Instead, liberals and democrats got in line, and allowed the corruption of our democracy. Many liberals even defended it, saying HRC's been in politics so long, of course she would do corrupt things and we should grow up and vote for her anyways.
Nixon resigned for far less___
So what happened? I would say that we didn't deserve the presidency this go around. Thank god we didn't win it- imagine the precedent that would set? Forever submitting to the most corrupt politician with the ignorant and enabling consent that "politicians are just corrupt, we deal".
Again, to all the pseudo-liberals out there who saw the corruption of our system and encouraged all of us to roll over to it- this is on you.
As a veteran of the debacle in Iraq- take my word on it that our indiscriminate bombing of other nations- the 65 million refugees of the world which we largely caused displacement for -(highest # since the United Nations High Commission on Refugees started counting shortly after WW2)----- is the most important issue we need to address as a nation- not any of our chosen social causes, nothing beats this issue people.
If you vote for women's rights at home, for marijuana rights at home, for LGBT rights at home, but vote for politicians pledging support to Saudi Arabia, which actively practices sharia law and STONES TO DEATH- in the public arena, members of the aforementioned groups---- you really, really need to re-evaluate your activity in political processes.
The saddest thing is that Bernie would have won- and he didn't because he would have been a world peace president. We are going to keep killing innocents all over the world, regardless of who we try to elect. We will continue to topple soveriegn governments for select economic interests in deals made far from the public eye, and The coalescence of the pseudo-liberals to the agenda of the DNC, even though we all smell a rat- is the cause of us living in a tyrannical state where we have no Power to change anything.
Jacob Purdom - If you want to wear a helmet, wear a helmet. If you want to wrap yourself in bubble-wrap to stay "safe", go for it. For those of us that choose differently, we just want to be left alone to decide for ourselves how we want to ride. We're adults and we do not need a nanny to tell us how to live and ride.
Bill Offutt, we are not ruled by your bible! And since it is an issue you will never have since you cannot get pregnant, you should really just shut up!
True journalism and political bias do not go together, as the latter tries to fit the facts to a narrative rather than letting the facts tell their own story.
Unfortunately, with the exception of some dining and entertainment stories this might be the only un-biased article I have read in the Independent over the last year. Your editorial staff might think that provides a balance to the other news sources in town, but frankly it just drags you down to their level.
Longinos Gonzalez is the much better candidate in Commissioner District 4 race. He is an AF veteran, teacher, and also a successful small businessman. He would bring much needed diversity to local leadership that we keep asking for, has been involved locally and spoken on behalf of poor neighborhoods, at-risk kids, and on veterans issues. And he is a political outsider, having pulled off a surprise, upset victory in his primary.
I spoke with Electra, great lady, recently. All across the west side and Manitou her signs are being stolen. Sad and small behavior but not unexpected from the vote suppressing, gerimandering crowd in which we live. Go get em Electra!
Thanks Helen and Joel. I was unsure how to vote on this. The pro-side ads say a yes vote will limit out-of-state special interests, but I was skeptical since all the career politicians - aka the enemy of the people - are all on the pro-side.
And...for anyone who likes Amendment 64...know it would never have gotten on the ballot under the new rules of A71. Also know that under A71, it will be easy to repeal. NO on A71.
I wholeheartedly agree with Helen Collins on A71. She is absolutely correct in her assessment that it is removing the possibility of a government by the governed.
You will also note the slight of hand that REPEAL of initiated changes (such as TABOR which is the ultimate target of Suthers and other special interests) does not require the requisite 55%. So A71 not only makes it harder for new citizen amendments to be passed, but also makes it easier to repeal ones that citizens already approved.
Rest assured that TABOR will be the first target for repeal by the special interests who depend on corporate welfare and would like no limit on taxes provided for such purposes. These are the same special interests pushing A71. NO on A71.
Liz Coelho: So you would prefer that people who are simply uninformed about the ballot just "vote anyway"? That's about 80% of the electorate, and it's the primary reason that we have the governmental and political mess that we have. The correct message is yes, people should vote, but they better be informed before the act. Most aren't.
Steve Schriener: You missed the obvious, which is that Wallace never called the statement true or his own, just that it was a statement. An informed candidate would have recognized the question as a response to a third-hand statement and addressed it as such, as you just did. But they didn't, which only illustrates their own economic ignorance. It never was Wallace's argument in the first place. Sometimes questions are asked to gauge responses and reactions and knowledge, and this was one of them. Heck, in 2008, McCain was asked about the Plunge Protection Team and had no clue about the answer, even though he was *in that group*.
Dan Costrell: You should be, because the Indy never bothered to talk to all of the candidates, including the opponents of the ones they endorsed.
Bill Durland: Good point on 71, although it's ancillary to the real issue. But your comment on 69 makes no sense: If our "health care system should not remain in the hands of insurance companies, practicing medicine without a license and controlling the responses to our medical needs, motivated by maximizing their dollars", then why should it be placed in the hands of government, also practicing medicine without a license and controlling the responses to our medical needs, motivated by spending our tax dollars? The common denominator is there: the decisions are out of our hands as are the cost controls. One extreme doesn't require a switch to the other extreme. Vote NO on 69, and get medical decisions back into the hands of doctors and patients, not the corporations, and definitely NOT the government.
William Nat - I read the link, with all of its comments. I have to consider the source. We can all cherry-pick from whatever we choose, but that doesn't mean it has any more credibility than the Disney Channel. You and your fear cannot stop good, honest human beings from choosing when and how to end their suffering. I have done the same for many of my animal companions and I would expect, as a human being, that the same options would be available to me and mine. If you disagree then take the Nancy Reagan approach when it cones your time - "Just say no". The same goes for gay marriage, by the way.
Write the word CHOICE in capital letters - your best block print - and then stand in front of a mirror. Face the paper toward you so it reads correctly; then take the paper and turn it upside down and toward the mirror. Tell me what you see, and what it makes you think.
This year, California woman Stephanie Packer was denied treatment because legal suicide was available!
Watch what happened to this woman's husband:
You think this is impossible?
Mr. Williams, suicide might be a crime in most jurisdictions, but as somewhere someone said - there have been no known prosecutions. You will not be able to dictate how I end my life when my pain becomes too severe, or when my life has no quality. If you base your argument on your god's wish that everyone live out their life 'naturally', regardless of their circumstances, then yours is a religious argument - keep it out of government. My life. My choice.
I, too, have read this bill - and I think you are promoting fear and suspicion where none really exists. I have also looked at the Oregon law with regard to litigation and complaints of other chicanery. I have, as of yet, found nothing to indicate that this law on their books for the last 2 decades has done anything except make it possible to die with dignity.
I watched my mother suffer and die from the ravages of colon cancer that spread to her pancreas. My heartfelt sympathies for your loss - but you are incorrect about this measure.
The Colorado promoters of assisted suicide are guilty of false advertising. Their bills do not deliver as promised. If they are really supporting individual choices and rights they would provide an ordinary witness to the self administration of the lethal dose. Without a witness they are allowing forced euthanasia. I learned after caring for my wife's last 18 months of declining autonomy. I learned that you can work on 4 hours sleep. I am focused on how this Prop 106 is written, it's omissions and how it could be administered to my wife.
Colorado Prop 106 provides no ordinary witness to the self-administration of poison.
Even as the promoters have inundated us with their chant that the lethal dose must be self-administered and mentioned it 9 times in their 11 page Prop 106 they do not provide an ordinary witness to the act. That omission effectively eviscerates all of the so called safeguards. The difference between having a witness to "self administration" and no witness is that one honors individual rights and the other is non voluntary euthanasia. A promoter was once asked "why don't you just legalize euthanasia?" He said "the public is not ready to accept euthanasia."
The process seems to be full of requirements on the front end up until the script is written. Then an heir can pick up the script and administer it without oversight. Know that only 2% of the doctors have attended these events in other states.
Even the front end requirements have fatal flaws. A predatory heir may be a witness to the initial request along with a staff member of the facility. Does that sound like good public policy?
The rest of the family is not required to be contacted. And everyone involved gets instant immunity. The death certificate is falsified by this law which makes it impossible to prosecute a murder when the death certificate states the underlying illness is the cause of death. There really is no transparent reason not to post poison as the cause.
This bill Final #145 Article 48 provides that a predatory heir can facilitate the signup process, murder the individual and receive immunity all before the rest of the family is notified. This is neither reasonable nor prudent public policy. This is dangerous public policy that puts the entire population (all ages) at risk of exploitation by the medical-industrial-complex, organ traffickers and predatory heirs.
I encourage people to read the Oregon model bill before taking a, or expounding on their position. We will agree no matter our starting position that this Prop 106 does not deliver.
This bill is not the one.
MTaas dot org
All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation