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
Robert, In all due respect, disagreement is welcomed and encouraged. But insults and name-calling diminish the credibility of one's argument.
Michael, Carolyn, Doug, Janet, Ben: Thank you and ditto.
Vietnamized, you have some screws loose and some that are sheared clean off. Your stories become more convoluted every week and abound with contradictions. Then the stuff you make up is absurd. You have found your rightful place though -Colorado Springs and The CS Indy- brought to you by dopers... And I have never seen a ballot wherein I could vote for war. Why vote when your fearless leaders use executive power to trump your Rights, cancel your vote and insinuate you are stupid?
Carolyn, you have it exactly right. Colorado Springs has been the focus (pun intended) of the religious right for years. When a middle schooler can stand up in a public school waving a Bible and say that it is the only book he needs it smacks of propagandistic indoctrination at the most insidious level. The religious right spent years trying to compromise the Constitutional edict of separation of church and state by compromising the Air Force Academy. Thankfully, they have failed, but not before doing some significant damage within the ranks of the Air Force. It's a shame.
My father, a career Air Force fighter pilot, said that he felt the military, especially career military, should NOT be allowed to vote. His reasoning was that the military would vote for more wars and more military/industrial complex - job security, so to speak. I disagreed with him at the time, but then the Air Force general (who now supports Trump) said that the war in Iraq (started on false pretenses from the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal) was the new "Crusade" and intimated it was the beginning of a religious war. We don't need his vote in our democracy, nor do we need the votes of anyone like him.
Just a reminder - T.Rump will only accept the results of the election "If I win". Very dangerous.
Tannim, you sound more and more like a 'sovereign citizen'...I'm still identifying as an American.
Janet, I support your right to choose how you die. All other opinions are based on mythology.
I'm stoked about the Islamic perspective in the religious part. Hating whiskey and porn makes sense if I was a hater.
Michael Gabriel: Who paid for the trip? If it's the city, then you're spot on. If it's Suthers himself, then you have no argument.
Carolyn Cathey: You have it wrong. The right to associate also includes the right to not associate, and as such the state's Public Accommodations law is an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment. Furthermore, requiring the public use os private property violates private property rights. You can't complain about alleged civil rights when they are used as a stick to violate the rights of others, and civil rights in commerce simply don't exist except as a legal fiction created to push liberal big-government agendas at the expense of the very rights you're claiming to protect.
Doug Nelson: Apples and oranges. Clinton violated national security. Trump did not. The only common fruit is that both are felonies. That common fruit is enough to not vote for either of them and instead vote for the honest candidate in Gary Johnson.
Janet Brazill: Exactly, but to statists, you, your body, and your choices all belong to them.
Ben Miller: No, the irony is that Amendment 71 would not have made the ballot at all under its own conditions.
Doesn't a constitutional amendment have to be ultimately voted by the people to pass? I agree with mr. miller on amendment 71. with more barriers to getting an amendment on the ballot then only the rich interests (like oil and gas promoting this amendment) can get an amendment on the ballot.
the voters should be the main barrier to an amendment not money. do we have so little faith in the voters of this state... ok forget that (amendment 2) but money should not be the main barrier to let the people have a say in this state.
To the editors of the Indy-
I am gathering that this publication is in support of HRC for president. I also see that nationally, the public is receiving the ultimatum of "vote HRC, or Trump may nuke the world".
I cannot vote HRC. I do not want Trump as president, and I recognize this crossroads.
HRC, objectively, is a war-hawk. The current situation in the Middle East ( notably Libya, Yemen and Syria) is directly attritubuted to the line of thinking to which she aligns and has promoted.
There are, literally, many millions of people in suffering we cannot empathize with. Millions without water, electricity, medical services- due to our unrelenting, and unconstitutional, bombing campaigns. We have provided over $100 billion in arms deals to Saudi Arabia since 2008, it is the only true Caliphate in the region. HRC is a direct supporter of this and we are likely to see continued escalation in the area with her presidency. Literally- millions of people dying and suffering- for selected economic interests of the plutocracy. We may as well be voting in one of the Dulles brothers.
Add to that the reality that the democratic primary process was fraudulent - it is very difficult- for me impossible - to morally justify a vote for HRC with the idea of her being any kind of good leader for our country.
As a progressive publication- respect the many voices of objectivity which do not have such an easy time acquiescing to the corruption of our supposed democracy, or the murder of millions in the Middle East which do us no good. We hope that our refusal to accept to such corruption- and our vocal admonition against it- serves to prevent it in the future. What are your thoughts?
All of today's events | Staff Picks
Submit an Event
All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation