Fortunately, voters win elections, not special interest groups. I won my council seat four years ago without their endorsement, and I will do everything I can to win again next April.
what do you expect... this backwards village is the old fart mecca of the mountains. young people don't want to stay here in teabaggerville and no young person worth a piss is going to work for $6250. since we are in teabaggerville it will be impossible to raise the salary. you know better than think these teabaggers want that $12 minimum raise to pass either. the downward spiral continues...
Sadly you seem to be right John. what's it going to take to fix this situation?
"we re gunna build a wall, and make Canada pay for it!"
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.
How I contact glen capers ? I am a long lost dear friend of his ... thank you
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?
As luck would have it Andrew both of this elections leading candidates are going to keep you gainfully employed for a long time to come. Hopefully, one day you will realize that being a bullet catcher for the military industrial complex is a pretty crappy way to make a living.
Andy's job includes firing on civilians. Hooray. The military is told to vote fortrump just like new life church...what a joke.
Dave is a great friend to many and an inspiration to all! Good job!
I guess they are attempting to horn in on the Koch Bros. territory!
Thanks, Andrew for putting a real face to the reason my father, a career military man, said that the military should not be allowed to vote because they vote for job security. We are not a militaristic society - if we were there would be more than a fraction of a percent of our population in the military.
I'm a Vietnam vet - I joined and served willingly until I got to Vietnam. I then began to understand what that war was about, and it was mainly about money, and the resources of the region that we had interests in. All wars are like that.
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
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation