Willie Breazell: You are misguided. The Colorado Constitution could be shortened rather easily, not by the misguided Raise the Bar Amendment, which is Californication written all over it, but by a simple amendment. Ready? Here it is:
"All citizen statutory initiatives shall not be amended or repealed by the Legislature, and each aforementioned initiative shall contain a statutory section listing the sections of the statues that initiative enacts or amends that shall not be amended or repealed by the Legislature."
That simple: isolate and highlight statutory changes that the people make, and keep the Legislature from undoing what the people decide.
Limiting or restricting the Legislature use of the Health and Safety Clause is a different issue, yet another good idea, since that prevents citizen referenda on bills passed, requiring citizens to turn to the constitutional amendment process in the first place.
As for #78, yes, it's a bad idea. Most liberal ideas that screw with the marketplace are.
Dick Standaert: Correct. Colorado Springs Forward is anything but. The correct solution is to make the CSU Board separate from the City Council and elected separately.
Matt Oalfssen: You are something resembling a whining idiot. Do us all a favor and leave for somewhere else where you'll be appreciated, like Flint, or North Korea.
Larry Lutz: ROFL!
Larimore Nicholl: must you continue to gab about your experiences with ObamaCare?
Tim Wood: Nope. The current system of party nominees making the final ballot is just fine. Top Two has been an unmitigated disaster in California. If you want to fix the system, then work for actual improvements like ranked-choice voting and equal funding of campaigns, including getting the media to pull out their heads and recognize that there are more than D/R candidates in races and cover them equally--or else the media is giving in-kind donations to candidates that must be monetized and recorded for each and every time.
Stephen Shogan: The caucus system isn't broken. The primary system is. Let your political parties fund their own nomination processes without taxpayer subsidy.
Steve Mabon: You're correct about the Lamborn Prayer fiasco and him being a disappointment, but dead wrong on the rest.
"But term-limited Senate President Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs, showing more allegiance to the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity than his own constituents, used his influence to prevent the bill from reaching the Senate floor."
Bullmanure. Stick to something you're good at, Ralphie, like overeating at stadiums. Doing the Koch thing just shows your intellectual bankruptcy and lack of real argument.
The bill died because it was an end-run around TABOR, and you know it.
As for I-25, the reason it hasn't been widened is due to CDOT's incompetence as much as Denver-based politics. In a better world, it would have been done two decades ago. Both the lanes and bridges in that stretch need improvement, but I-25 also needs widening from Circle Drive to US85 in Fountain as well.
Little D at nine...hmmm. Nine year olds reach the highest level of clarity in humans. These are some of the last rational thoughts that a human has before they are forever reduced to a slave to hormones. However, to be a resolute partisan at nine,smacks of reactive thinking to some powerful counterbalance.
Once again you are confusing atheism and agnosticism. Since this discussion is in English, perhaps you might want to consult an English dictionary or any textbook dealing with formal logic. While proof or evidence may be, as you say, totally irrelevant to the atheist; to the agnostic proof and evidence are everything. Words and their meanings are very important. Contrary to your assertion, there is such a thing as an agnostic.
From the Oxford English dictionary:
1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Colorado College should exert some humanitarian and egalitarian ideals on their runaway Pop/NPR/Corporate media outlet. The last thing Colorado Springs needs is another PEAK-FM. If this GM and her happy sycophants want another pop megastation, they should quit KRCC and apply at the Peak and quit ruining public radio.
Atheism itself does NOT say “there is no god”. That is a common misunderstanding of what atheism is. Individual atheists ALSO make that mistake when responding to the assertion that there IS a god. All any atheist SHOULD say is “I don’t share your faith in the existence of a supreme being.” (Sorry to use the personal pronoun “your”. I don’t (and didn’t) mean to refer to obliosupercat specifically. I make no assumptions regarding obliosupercat's faith).
Atheism is simply a lack of faith in the existence of a god. There is no more “proof” that there is NO god than there is “proof” that there IS a god. “Proof” has NO role to play, and is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to this discussion…same with the word “evidence”. Atheists understand this, and defiantly should not use such words. As you have pointed out, such a discussion is “… a futile exercise”. Atheists simply do not possess faith and they should leave it at that.
Yet you insist:
“Atheists DO have faith that there is no supreme being.”
Do you exercise faith to NOT believe in leprechauns?
I hope you can understand how silly or absured it would be for me to state emphatically:
“obliosupercat DOES have faith that there are no leprechauns”.
That you seem to be incapable of conceiving of someone NOT having faith, is no justification for you to project faith upon someone who simply doesn’t have faith.
I don’t know why you brought up “agnosticism”. Babies are NOT born “agnostics” with the cognitive ability to contemplate the existence of a god, much less whether one exists or not.
I have a bone to pick with so called “agnostics” too. To “suspend judgement” as to whether there exists a god or not is simply another way to acknowledge that faith in such a being is lacking, and without faith, well, they’re atheists. There is no such thing as an “agnostic”. One has faith, or one does not have faith. To express the idea that the jury might still be out does not have anything to do with whether or not an individual possesses faith.
Why is such a simple concept as atheism so difficult to understand? Why do theists burden atheism with the theological baggage that theists require to affirm their FAITH? The simple lack of faith requires no affirmations, and is unquestionable.
Glad to know that this is a 'step one' location. I've been a bit bummed by the reduction in scope from the original plans. Bring it on CSPM! Let's get this thing going!
asawatcher. As I stated, The existence or non-existence of a god cannot be proven using any extant logical method, so both views rely on faith. Atheists belief in the non-existence of a deity are based on faith, not sound logic and fact. What you are describing is closer to agnosticism, agnosticism is a position that suspends judgement on all matters of faith, in other words since the existence or non-existence of a deity cannot be proven, the only logical position is to suspend judgement until a time when facts that support either theism or atheism are logically supported. Agnostics simply don't give a damn whether god exists or not, taking a position one way or another results in the same logical fallacies, and is considered a futile exercise. Atheists DO have faith that there is no supreme being, it is an act of faith, due to the lack of evidence to support this belief. Embracing atheism is as much a conscious choice as embracing theism, since we are truly born agnostic. Contrary to you assertion, atheists DO engage in faith, agnostics do not. As for your assumption that I have faith in a supreme being; well, you know what the say about assumptions?
With all due respect, you have expressed a couple of the more common mistaken ideas as to what atheism is.
Like when you write:
“…this includes folks who do not share your belief in the atheist religion.”
Atheism is not a religion. It is the ABSENCE of religion. Sorta the “unreligion”. That’s why the word “atheism” is not capitalized.
“Since the existence or non-existence of god cannot be proven through any formal method of logic, both rely on faith and ego.”
Here you express the common failure to recognize the ESSENTIAL difference between a theist and an atheist: atheists simply do NOT engage faith. Theists and atheists share most “beliefs”. What they DON’T share is “faith”. Faith is the essential ingredient of theism. Without faith, there is no religion. The difference between a theist and an atheist is NOTHING MORE than the fact that atheists do not share your faith in the existence of a Supreme Being (a god).
Keep in mind that you were born an atheist. Embracing faith is a conscious choice that theists make. Atheists, simply, do not make that choice.
Cathy. Are atheists issued cards now? From a logical standpoint atheism and religion suffer from the same set of logical fallacies. Since the existence or non-existence of god cannot be proven through any formal method of logic, both rely on faith and ego. We have freedom of speech in this country. We are all entitled to say whatever we want, without being censored, this includes folks who do not share your belief in the atheist religion. Is freedom of speech only for card carrying members of your club? Do you issue and revoke the cards yourself? If you want to put your money where your mouth is I'm sure you can purchase your own ad space, until you do, you don't really have a bench to call "mine".
Nice. Let's hear more about diversity, inclusion, and acceptance. We need more stories with positive vibes in our world, so keep them coming! 😎
So you're calling the same party that enacted TARP, and found it did nothing to help the economy out over saying no to more spending on nothing? So it's ok to simply not allow something to come up and be discussed but hear it out and have a vote is bad ? Under Harry Reid that's what happened, and he even put in to actuon the rule you are complaining about. What are you really upset about? That you can't get a spending pass to do what ever you want or that you have no other solutions to the problems facin the country.
I am an atheist and if the guy above is an atheist, his "atheist card" should be revoked. It's offensive because the city is going down a slippery slope of not caring about the separation of church and state. And if "Jesus" benches are allowed, then my bench with the message, "The Bible is a Book of Fairytales," should be allowed also. Additionally, why is Pam Zubeck putting so much focus on the fact that there was only one caller complaint? It proves nothing. Believe me, there are plenty of us who agree with the caller. And if more calls are needed to make sure separation of church and state are followed, there will be more calls.
Pride parade video: https://youtu.be/IttEAfBFgrI
I'm 21 do I qualify for urban peak youth?
I would have to respectfully disagree from this review which seemed to me a bit mean spirited and a bit elitist in the writing. The smoked burger I just had tonight was great and the side of fries were amazing. I had the smokey porter (3 glasses worth). It was dark, smooth not to hard on my taste buds. (I'm not a big fan of hoppy beers). The smokey porter was a more stout version of what a guinness might be. The malt cider, I will agree, is middle of the road but overall, I would say the notion of the beers being "inferior" might be a little hyperbole. I have recommended this establishment to all my friends and I would recommend for all to try and figure it out for yourself. I like the "Pig" and plan on coming back again and again.
Super excited to welcome our new neighbors to the hood!
This is a genuinely heartwarming article, and I was happy to read about the sense of validation and finality which accompanied the writer's official marriage to her spouse. However, I detest the word "queer," and I virtually beg other readers not to fall into what I consider the trap of being duped into using this word. To me, this word is (and will always remain) a filthy insult, laden with hatred and homophobia. I am NOT queer -- I am an openly gay man, and shudder whenever I hear other people use the word "queer" to describe persons such as myself.
Perhaps my attitude is generational (I am in my early 50s). I have heard this word hurled at gay men and lesbians as a derogatory and humiliating insult so many times that I cannot stand to hear it. Some gay men and lesbians claim that they are diluting the power that this word has to wound -- I, for one, do not buy this, any more than I buy the notion that black persons should use the "n" word to describe themselves in an effort to lessen the ability of that word to wound, or that gay men should call themselves "faggots" in an effort to lessen the ability of that word to wound......
Of course, I cannot force others not to use this word. But I would hope that others would think this through very, very carefully.
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation