This GOP'er will send his money and vote to Blaha and Obama. Today's GOP is a sad cartoon.
Lamborn's conduct goes way beyond childish. At this point it smacks of racism.
Furthermore, we are demonstrably in better shape today than we were when Bush left office.
Finally, we all know the "vast" difference between wages and capital gains. Wages are taxed at 30% and capital gains are taxed at 15%.
It seems like a childish thing to do. However, Obama said exactly the same thing two years ago and, after spending trillions (yes trillions) of dollars, we are in just as bad or worse shape.
By the way, there is a vast difference between wages and capitol gains.
I write and email Doug Lamborn quite frequently to voice my displeasure. I have never heard a peep back from him or his office - not even an auto-reply. Yesterday, however, i did get a big shiny expensive Lamborn flyer in the mail. I showed it the same kind of respect Lamborn has shown me (rip-rip-trash).
I would gladly vote for ANYONE but lamborn. Everyone should
You know how to voice your frustration in a meaningful way? Vote for Obama.
Can't possibly imagine why Bach brought in former mayor Rivera (perhaps one this city's least liked politicians) to pitch Bach's resolution to council. More puzzling yet, council actually passed this resolution to support Lambert's ill-fated bill!
Special K: and once again, another post from my friend K that says absolutely nothing.
Really, smartestman, you are too humble.
I would say a person needs to be much more than "just a wee bit brighter" to fathom what it is you are attempting to communicate when you mangle the English language. I would say it takes at least a masters degree in metaphysics to make sense of it!
Special K: I believe my point was quite obvious to those folks that are just a wee bit brighter.
So, smartestman, you are saying that you are in favor of an ordinance that would make it illegal to set up camp in crowded theaters. What if the theaters are not crowded?
The number of PR gaffes (to put it nicely) committed by this administration is remarkable. I say administration, because I'm assuming that Bach gets some sort of advice from his staff before he puts his foot in his mouth. I may be mistaken, and I hope I am, because that would mean that the entire crew doesn't know what it's doing.
"... sea to shining sea" - Just as it would be inappropriate (and illegal) to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, so it would be inappropriate for the "occupiers" to set up camp and spew their anti-everything rhetoric in the same theater.
I, for one, am glad I don't have to anymore gaze upon their filthy, unorganized, pitiful little settlement which desecrated our downtown park for much too long.
Activists (and street bums) are not the only ones that have rights.
Regarding item 12, maybe Amy should challenge Lamborn as the GOP candidate in the race for the U. S. House of Reps for District 5; we could sure use better representation for our district.
It makes sense that states with few electoral votes get fewer federal dollars because the low electoral numbers reflect low total population. I would be surprised if the dollars turned over to these states, Colorado included, turned out to be less than the dollars paid out in taxes to the federal government.
Many, if not most, of the states with more electoral votes, like NY and CA, pay out more in federal taxes than they get back in federal grants. This extra burden on richer states, that is, states with richer residents, does not work in Obama's favor.
Before saying that Obama has written off the small states, I would want to see how he would spend infrastructure money, if Congress would only pass an infrastructure improvement plan.
I note the states that were stiffed have relatively low-electoral-vote counts, and were probably written off by the Obama administration as lost causes for the 2012 election. The breakdown for the stiffed states is: AZ 10, CO 9, NE 5, NM 5, NV 5, UT 5, WY 3, which totals: 42, or less than CALI's 55.
Looking at the electoral vote allocation shows that he only needs 22 states to win it again. To win in 2012, Obama needs 270 electoral votes: If he carries CA 55, CT 7, DE 3, DC 3, FL 27, HI 4, IL 21, ME 4, MD 10, MA 12, MI 17, MN 10, NH 4, NJ 15, NY 31, OH 20, OR 7, PA 21, RI 4, VT 3, WA 11, WI 10, then he garners 299 electoral votes from just 22 states. He could even lose FL and still get 270 votes to win.
With the Feds essentially broke, money for road improvements will have to come from local taxes, but that's a non-starter in our elections here, no matter how deep the potholes get. Either way, this city and county are screwed, done in by a self-inflicted wound.
Ralphie: You had better leave the attempt at comedy to my pal Rich. You don't seem to be "equipped" to handle it.
keith king pusking vouchers is NOT respected by Dems, but I expect GOPers to lie lie lie.
oh and even democrat politicians also!
My Dear smartestman,
You write, "moderate or modern, do you think it makes a difference."
Of course it does not make a difference to a propagandist who is more interested in the emotional impact of words than their actual meaning. But in order to have an intelligent discussion, one must use words to accurately describe facts, something you would not be familiar with since you only use words for personal attacks and insults.
I find it interesting that you do not even pretend to deny that your reading comprehension is wanting. This time you were caught in a misunderstanding, but how often have you misread or misunderstood what other people have written cannot be determined. Moreover, your bravado attempt to pass it off as unimportant merely highlights your vanity at the expense of your intelligence. I note that you have complained more than once that what I write makes no sense to you. Perhaps, if you read it over more slowly, sounding out each word, and with a dictionary handy, it would help.
I also notice that you ask a question without putting in a question mark. That is sloppy writing on top of sloppy reading, which is a sign of sloppy thinking.
My Dear smartestman,
First of all, in my original post, I accused Geo.W. Bush of appeasing Pakistan and praised Barack Obama for ignoring and bypassing Pakistan. I also accused Bush of deliberately abandoning the search for Osama bin Laden and praised Obama for nailing him. Finally, I accused Bush of alienating moderate Muslims and praised Obama for his success in reaching out to moderates in the Muslim community, a success so powerful that even the assassination of bin Laden could not destroy it.
In your own amusing, befuddled style you have taken exception to only the last point, that relations with moderate Muslims have improved under Obama. I take it that means that you cannot find anything wrong with the rest of my analysis.
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation