Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Comment Archives: stories: Columns: Your Turn
Re: “Different world in Cambodia”
Actually, things always contain both good and bad sides. We cannot mention about only its good points while forgetting its weak points. I think you should try to understand both of them simultaneously and learn to accept and change rather than criticizing without actions. To the writer of this article, I see in you that you are lack of praising emotion about the world around you. We are not born to criticize things but spending time to find its good points. Please think again about your world and try to understand the beauty around you, and then you will live in a better place.
Posted by
Asin
on 08/25/2011 at 3:05 AM
Re: “The evil of two lessers”
It's worse than all that. The political funding system which we now have in place, is basically a way for the richest 20% (who control 85% of the material wealth in the United States) to buy whoever they need to be in office in any position. Whoever you vote for will most certainly support the richest 20%, because they paid for their campaign through whatever means were necessary, and after the politician is done they will be responsible for their well being after that as long as their taxes don't increase, the deals which benefit the corporations they sit on the board of prosper, and things like the inheritance tax are moved from keeping their money to themselves.
(This is also why capital gains taxes remain at about 15%).
The saddest part of course is that Americans have little understanding of how wealth is actually distributed in the country, AND how they actually rank on the list. I know when I was a kid in a middle class family I could not have ever imagined how different the world must look atop a 6 billion dollar fortune, compared to my dad going off to build houses every day. And stepping beyond this our country IS fueled to hate each other. Because we say we belong to this party or that party. How many people who make less than $75,000 total income identify with Republicans who say we don't want to raise taxes on the rich? What they are really doing is saying "Hey don't tax those people who could effortlessly afford it. Continue taxing me because I make an amount of money each year, that should one of the super rich encounter it while walking across the street, they may stop and have someone pick it up for them." So long as Americans can be convinced by the 20 second clips on Faux news;, that one idea is all there is we will continue to be polarized and factionalized against each other, just enough to allow the top 1-20% to rob us blind for another 100 years or so. Once all the parks are gone, and the schools continue in their decline,
and the welfare systems are locked away, and no one outside the sphere of the 20 percent-ers have true health care maybe those of you who wrote about how bad a tax increase would be may shut the hell up. Because you should know this more than anything else: The super rich don't care about our schools, their kids don't go there. The don't care about our parks because their estates eclipse them in both size and beauty, and they sure as hell don't care about our access to welfare programs and health care because when you have billions that is not a reality for you. Keep supporting to cut their taxes and keep hoping that creates jobs. But we all know the reality. They don't want to create more jobs. They want to continue to find ways to keep from creating jobs so they can make more money. Those jobs didn't go to Mexico and India. They are the online travel agents, the digital photo machine, the robots assembling cars and packaging foods. That means that those jobs aren't coming back. And you poor saps felt so sorry about taxing the rich, the very people who have made their lives, and whose ancestors made it their lives, to amass and amass and amass wealth on the backs of hardworking people from every race, color, and creed.
If you haven't already started to buy your ramen noodles in bulk you may wanna make a run to Wal Mart this week. Because we are so far from where this will end that you'll be lucky to have water and electricity to cook them for dinner when the time comes.
Posted by
lcp1138
on 08/04/2011 at 10:15 PM
Re: “OKC's example for us”
What allowed OKC to accomplish this amazing revitalization (which, if you haven't been to OKC, *is* really amazing) was the MAPS tax - a five year 1 cent sales tax increase. After the first successful five years, the tax expired and citizens again voted in favor of a tax increase to fund school renovation. When that expired, they again voted to renew the tax for other city improvements. All these projects were done without incurring municipal debt. We have to be willing to pay for what we'll get.
Posted by
FrogTuesday
on 07/18/2011 at 1:22 PM
Re: “The evil of two lessers”
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). Then, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, VT, and WA. These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes — 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Posted by
oldgulph
on 06/01/2011 at 10:08 AM
Re: “OKC's example for us”
Without addressing the key component (money) this is all so much the same hot-air we have heard the past eight years from the same 50 people in the same venues. What is missing is the financial support of the public and until all the 'collobarators' find a way to gain public support, you will remain a small town with 'wannabe' dreams of someday being a small city.
A better means of getting to the public is essential and the public needs to hear credible facts from believable people. All the bullcrap from Mary Ellen and Sallie about these marvelous 'collaborative partnerships' have done nothing but build distrust with the public because nothing is happening!
Posted by
fortworthrick
on 05/23/2011 at 2:38 PM
Re: “OKC's example for us”
Yep. 'Collaborative Partnerships'.
Sure need more of those.
Posted by
fortworthrick
on 05/23/2011 at 1:13 PM
Re: “OKC's example for us”
People in Texas and Oklahoma do more than 'collaborate' endlessly. They work to achieve what they want and they have county officials they can trust with money.
Posted by
Staci6
on 05/23/2011 at 12:55 PM
Re: “Stop the morality police”
I'm also a former dancer, kelly, and that wasn't my experience at all. I saw very little in the way of hard drugs, and I watched a lot of girls go from the stage to four-year-degrees or other worthy goals.
Posted by
Sonnet
on 05/06/2011 at 8:47 AM
Re: “Stop the morality police”
Nice job, Beth, demonstrating that the representatives of the far Right, far from wanting freedom from governmental regulation, would actually prefer that the government run our lives. I've never understood quite how voters allow the Reps to slide on that particular canard.
Posted by
Eva
on 05/06/2011 at 6:12 AM
Re: “Stop the morality police”
The only thing more pathetic than a guy that goes to a strip club is a dancer there every night(putting her way through college...hehe). Sexuality is great in a lot of forms, but when I was dancing, most of the girls had bad drug habits and daddy issues. These girls need help, and the only thing more boring than the customers is the cop documenting these poor, lost souls. It's not a party, it's a slow downward death spiral. If you want to get fully torqued AND have fun... do a burlesque show.
Posted by
kellybleu
on 05/05/2011 at 9:33 PM
Re: “Stop the morality police”
Ah Beth. Ya got'm right through the heart. Well done.
Posted by
mrmiller
on 05/05/2011 at 11:46 AM
Re: “Be careful what you wish for”
Excellent job on the article! I fear for this legislature. I had moved away from CO last year due to work and am now in a state (OH) where beer is stocked with the national brands at the grocery store. I have to travel an hour just to find a liquor store that has the same variety that rivals that of what's common in CO.
Don't get me wrong, I can find some craft beer at the grocery stores, but selection is thin and BMC is dominate. Given my choice, I'll take the 'antiquated' system of CO. Folks, this is what will happen in your state and you don't want it. Trust me.
Posted by
Beer_Man
on 04/26/2011 at 11:14 AM
Re: “A question of goals”
Good article. I agree that RECs are more meaningful & valuable when they are purchased from local facilities. The purchaser is supporting renewable energy development within their community, region or state. Adam Gerza, Leaf Exchange
Posted by
Adam Gerza
on 04/22/2011 at 5:45 PM
Re: “Be careful what you wish for”
{I want to start by Thanking Mr. Bristol for Laughing Lab! One of my favorites!}
Here's the part of Mr. Bristol's argument (and I've heard it from other craft brewers as well) that just doesn't jive: If I can't find my Laughing Lab at King Soopers, which is my grocery of choice, I'm not going to just grab a Colorado Native instead. No, I'm going to go to my local liquor store that always carried Laughing Lab, and I'm going to say HI to all the other craftbrew drinkers joining me there. Bristol's sales stay the same, with small increase do to word-of-mouth.
"Convenience and price" over "taste and quality"? Really? Then how did craft brewing ever get a foothold in the first place?
I find the 900 out of business number to be highly exaggerated. I'd like to see the real numbers behind that analysis. I do expect *some* small stores to go out of business -- mainly the ones catering to the Coors/Bud/Miller crowd. "Hey Bubba, I can get my 40s at King Soopers! Cool!"
But liquor stores survive because they offer 2 things grocery chains do not: speciality and spirits. There is nothing in this law, or any other that has been proposed in the past 4 years, to expand the regulations to allow spirits or wine at groceries. If you want anything other than beer, you need a liquor store. The two survive in complement to each other. What I expect from this regulation is maybe the price of craft beers goes up a little, but the stores still carry them *because they are the ONLY place to find them!*... and there is room for MORE on their shelves as they stop carrying the major labels and catering to the "common" drinker.
Posted by
offdisc
on 04/04/2011 at 11:34 PM
Re: “Be careful what you wish for”
Thanks, KLondon. The point of my anecdote was that contrary to Mike's assertion that local craft beer would likely not be carried at the big grocery chains (and if it were it would be more expensive), major chains do make room for local products at reasonable prices.
But more importantly, I never find Bristol on sale for 6.99. Next time you do, please let me know!
Posted by
needbeermoney
on 04/04/2011 at 11:30 AM
Re: “Be careful what you wish for”
FYI to needbeermoney:
I agree with you, except for your statement, "Volume buying drives prices lower. I just got back from Seattle, where I bought a 6-pack of Pike Place Pale Ale at Kroger-owned QFC. As a King Sooper card holder I bought that pack (which was regularly 8.99) on sale for 6.99."
Most craft beer in Colorado (including Bristol) is regularly priced at $8.00-$8.49. You'll find it on sale quite often at liquor stores for $6.99. No Soopercard needed.
Posted by
KLondon
on 04/01/2011 at 10:49 AM
Re: “Be careful what you wish for”
Thanks Mike for your responsiveness.
A different version of this bill would likely gain my support. As it stands, this unfairly tilts the table in favor of out-of-state businesses at the potential expense of our local owners and the community they foster.
I feel strongly that consumers deserve freedom of choice. And on the surface, I thought that is what this bill offered. While the laws are not perfect as is, this change, as it is written, could threaten local breweries. I still would like to see changes that bring about more choice.. including selling +3.2 in groceries and convenience stores.. however, this bill does not offer the transitional protections to ensure we do not lose a valuable part of our brewing community.
Posted by
danga
on 03/29/2011 at 10:26 PM
Re: “Different world in Cambodia”
This is a one-sided and extremely voyeuristic description of life in Phnom Penh and Cambodia in general. Anybody who has lived here longer than a month knows to value the beauty and equally the simplicity of this country.
Of course there are dark sides but we are living in a country of hope encouraged by a young population eager to study and develop their skills and also their country.
Prositutes and land-mines are such a cliche and mentioning them continuously do more harm over here than they create excitement by the people reading it abroad and feeling sorry.
Come by yourself, visit this country and talk to the people to find out that the author of this article is just repeating old prejudices and not willing to let this country develop out of their past.