To 'none of the above'; who said anything about Organic? There's a HUGE difference between GMO free and organic foods. Huge.
As we approach the end of the election cycle, there is a CENSORSHIP issue that, I feel, you should be made aware of regarding ISSUE 1B - the Stormwater issue. You know that I am a supporter of resolving our drainage infrastructure. I attended the El Pomar session and shook hands with Mr. Dave Munger afterward. I told him that I support many of the things he said but cannot support a fee-based funding mechanism. He told me about their survey - that voters actually preferred a fee over a tax. I asked to see that and did find the results on the www.pikespeakstormwater.org web site. What I found was startling and thought the public needed to see the results for themselves...and YOU need to see these results too.
When I published these results on their Facebook page, the Pikes Peak Stormwater administrators REMOVED my comments. I also commented on the video that they use showing Commissioner Glenn voicing his support. When I commented on that loop about these findings - THEY REMOVED THEM. I respect Commissioner Glenn but if I can't comment on his views given that he MAY be one of the commissioners appointed to the PPRDA board if this passes, then what does that tell you about DIRECT versus INDIRECT input to this whole effort. But I digress.
Mr. Munger, in his talk at the El Pomar session stated that voters actually supported a fee over a tax in their survey. The results below seem to back that up but there are things he is NOT telling the public.
First - even in the line of question directed at the fee in which 44% either strongly support or somewhat support the fee, a full 50% OPPOSE the fee. They didn't want anyone to see that so they removed my comments from their FB page.
Second - the math for the line of question about the sales tax approach seems to say that 40% either strongly support or somewhat support the sales tax approach. The front page of this report states that the Margin of Error for this survey is +/- 4.9%. Therefore, there is a statistical tie between the fee-based approach and the sales tax approach - but they don't want you to know that so they removed my comments from their FB page.
Third - If you look at those opposed, and pardon the colloquial phrase, but the public thinks they all suck....just that the fee-based approach sucks the least. But they didn't want you to know that so they removed my comments from their FB page.
Fourth - and most startling. For completeness the survey asked about a Public Debt funding option involving 20 year bonds to raise the necessary funding then re-pay the bonds. 53% supported that approach. That's right....53% supported that approach. BUT...in a strange move, either the polling company or the Stormwater Taskforce thought that the respondents were confused about that approach. So ONE WEEK LATER they called back those respondents who supported the public debt approach and posed 5 more questions to them that essentially poked holes in the approach and asked "would you be as likely or less likely to support that approach?" NOW..what kind of survey result is that when, one week later you call them back to ask "what did you really mean". BUT..they don't want you to know that so they removed my comments from their FB page.
This is tragic. I am concerned about the state of our infrastructure. I support a regional approach to this problem. I think there are other issues within city and county administrations that needs fixing too so that this issue is manageable over the long run. I think drainage is BASIC Infrastructure that should be funded by operating budgets supported by the tax base - not special fees. I cannot support the fee-based approach. Lastly, I certainly cannot stand attempts to CENSOR my opportunity to present these issues to the Stormwater task force and the voting population.
Definitely a troll. If GMOs were no big deal, and you believe in them, then let's proudly put this proclamation on the label and let the people decide. Expenses have always been passed to consumers - even wasteful $ to defeat a tiny label. So let's finally show the rest of the US we like choices. Yes on Prop 105.
So he goes out of his way to emphasize "that we are not a commune", as if he's proud to let everyone know it fits within the capitalistic mindset which has arguably kept housing from the hands of millions of people for thousands of years. Basically a rich guy has borrowed from a once-thougt-to-be egalitarian theme, and ran with it for his own purposes. Yawn. It sounds just like any other over-priced venture into exclusivity. Michael Reynolds seems to eat out of two sides of his mouth these days...one for poor African villages, and one for rich capitalistic American venturists. Good luck, and great news for people with that kinda money...but I'll wait until something more affordable comes along.
Joel Salatin - small farmer, author and advocate for a return to sustainable and healthy farming methods - is opposed to GMOs. I will take his word, based on his decades of scholarly research into all aspects of farming and most importantly his decades of experience as a farmer - which ultimately is the only "scientific evidence" that matters - rather than believe the "real science" of those scientists who are employed by the industrial growers and chemical laboratories who make GMO seeds and bring their products to market.
If there is nothing wrong with GMO products, why are the chemical companies and Big Ag and industrial food manufacturers spending millions of dollars to prevent labels from carrying the info that their products contain GMOs? VOTE YES on 105.
Damn I wish I was being paid by Monsanto. Raking in those #shillbucks would be great. It would mean that I would actually have a consistent job. Unfortunately. More or less unemployed in southern colorado.
But lets try and think about this. Work those critical thinking skills. The Independent is a small paper with a small readership. Why would I "Troll" here if I were being paid by Monsanto? Why would I devote time to be here at all? What would that accomplish?
Hell my account goes back way before 105 meant anything.
For the most part, you look like you're grasping at straws for making an empty accusation. With no evidence to prove it.
Steven Alexander Shaver is a MONSANTO Troll. Gets paid to lie, confuse and deceive. Vote YES on 105
Re: Ammendment 68
How many casinos in Blackhawk are owened by Colordoans? Seems to me, and I could be very wrong here, most, if not all, of the Blackhawk casinos are owened by people in Las Vegas. As far as this being a monopoly in Arapahoe County, well... yes. A business unlike any other in a region could easily be thought of as a monopoly. If there isn't any other like it. But is it written somewhere that this can be the one and only casino in Arapahoe County? This could very well open the door for a local resident to put up a casino. Because, you know, who wants to go to Cripple Creek or Blackhawk when you can enjoy the glitz and glammer of... um... Arapahoe County? Eat your heart out Vegas!!*
* Sorry. I wasn't able to paste the eyeroll emoticon.
here your answer, http://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/the-…
Why do you oppose ammendment 68?
So you're going to just discount the studies in the GENERA database?
How could anyone be unsure of this issue? The big corporations did their own study at the beginning of the GMO craze. Their own guy came out on stage, said that he was positive going into this study that GMO was completely harmless, but that, after all the testing was done it proved unequivocally that GMO crops will kill us all. I saw that press conference myself but they clearly had that video, the study, and the guy disappeared. There is not one single good reason in existence to oppose GMO labels. The big corporations - Monsanto - don't want the labels and will do anything to convince people that labeling is not the answer. They aren't going to stop using GMO's, even though the crop yields are actually worse. So, labeling, and therefore, avoiding all GMO products is the only viable answer at the moment.
If I remember correctly, the monuments on the Pioneers Museum grounds are there because of private funds raised by the Pioneers Association in honor of those who came to the county in the 19th century. I don't think they have much to do with government.
Colorado Springs is filled with the new age new world order agenda. The statue of the pyramid and the all seeing eye that sits in front of the city museum along the east side of Nevada should tell ALL citizens of COS were the mind set of our city government lies. Every word that is spoken is a lie.
Thank you Anita and Council Joel for standing tall and bringing the truth to light.
What C4C Proponents are not telling you is that is Mayor Bach's way of bowing down to the United Nations Agenda 21
Take a look at this
@Ion Cscityhall......I notice you have an illuminatti symbol as your profile pic. Isn't there a connection between City For Champions and The United Nations Agenda 21?
By all means let's keep Colorado Springs in the doldrums. North of Monument Hill the state's economy is thriving and downtown Denver is the heart beat of the economy. Down here in Conservative Colorado Springs we don't have even have a pulse. Keep it up Miller's you'll leave a sad legacy for our community.
Analysis: Nope, Same-Sex Marriage Doesn't Dissuade Straight People from Getting Married
A recent analysis by Fact Checker at the Reno Gazette-Journal looked into the marriage rate of countries abroad that have legalized same-sex marriage and compared the marriage rate over time. The findings show that same-sex marriage has not had any impact on the rate of different-sex marriages. So Nevada need not be worried about marriage equality recently coming to the state.
The ongoing decline in different-sex marriages is actually a trend started decades before same-sex marriage became an issue. Fact Checker looked at Eurostat data and compared marriage rates in Germany, Italy and the Netherlands over the decades. Although they have differing laws about marriage, all three countries had the same trend, according to Fact Checker, and showed declines in marriages since the 1970s.
In Germany (where a form of civil unions are legal), the marriage rate fell 49.5 percent. In the Netherlands (with full marriage equality), it fell 45.5 percent. And in Italy, a country that rejects same-sex marriages, the rate fell 54.5 percent. The same lack of pattern is found when looking at states in the U.S.
GWINCO- YOU OBOVIOUSLY DON’T KNOW HOW TO USE GOOGLE. I DID AND FOUND MANY LINKS FOR “HOMOSEXUAL ANIMALS” SO MAYBE YOU SHOULD CONSIDER GOING BACK TO COLLEGE AND ACTUALLY TAKING A HUMAN SEXUALITY COURSE THAT WOULD TEACH YOU THAT SUCH THINGS ARE POSSIBLE IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM! LMAO AT YOU!!!
GWinCO, perhaps you are the one who needs to learn from the animals. Homosexual acts occur in nature all the time. Marriage ceremonies, on the other hand, never do occur in the wild.
All content © Copyright 2014, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation