Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: News: Endorsements

Re: “Endorsements: From parks to personhood

How Colorado ranks in education:…

Seriously, this is bad. Really bad! Nobody wants to pay more taxes, but at least most liberals would vote for it to fund education. Unfortunately, almost every conservative would vote against it. With ammendment 68, no one's paying paying higher taxes and schools are getting a desperately needed boost in funding. This ammendment helps tax payers and schools, and only hurts Blackhawk's business. And that's exactly why they're the one's buying up ad time to tell you to vote no.

Posted by Ian Campbell on 10/29/2014 at 7:27 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

A quote from a Philippine scientist in the Nation article: “For every application of genetic engineering in agriculture in developing countries, there are a number of less hazardous and more sustainable approaches and practices with hundreds, if not thousands, of years of safety record behind them. None of the GE applications in agriculture today are valuable enough to farmers in developing countries to make it reasonable to expose the environment, farmers and the consumers to even the slightest risk.”

Scientists don't know what the long-term effects of eating GMO products will be. Why risk eating something without knowing what you're eating and what it might do to you? Put a label on it! VOTE YES on 105.

Posted by curious on 10/29/2014 at 7:18 PM

Re: “Endorsements: From parks to personhood

Allow me to translate jbmonco:

What was said: "I hate it when they try to get us to vote for something by tying it to education funding."
What was meant: I'll vote, but why support education funding?

What was said: "Let's fund education the right way and not depend on things like this."
What was meant: Let's stand around and watch as everyone votes against raising taxes for anything, including funding education.

What was said: "I'm wholly uninterested one way or the other in gambling but because they tied it to education I'm voting NO."
What was meant: I don't care if they build a casino, but ALL of the money better go to the owners! How dare they even THINK about giving any of the profits to benefit the education of our children, the future of our world?! No. We'll simply put raising taxes to fund education to a vote, and watch as conservatives shiver at the idea of raising taxes and overwhelmingly vote it down.

Posted by Ian Campbell on 10/29/2014 at 7:11 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

So you want to see studies that cite a connection between GMOs and auto-immune diseases? So do I. Surely the GMO promoters would not sell products to the public that would make them sick. Would they?

Posted by curious on 10/29/2014 at 6:06 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

Also please cite studies about new "autoimmune" diseases...

the GENERA database are all independent studies not done by "big ag" ...

Posted by Steven Alexander Shaver on 10/29/2014 at 5:49 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

The only country to ban GMOs outright is Peru.

There are some who have banned only certain crops, there are some that have restricted the growth of certain crops but also regularly import transgenics. There are many where it's that they just haven't been tested by their government yet.

For instance Italy is on that "list" and they regularly import crops.

China's "banned" them in the sense that they want their own transgenic crops and don't want to use the RR transgene.

In fact, they are one of the leaders of biotechnology in the world. They produce an extraordinary amount mutagenic crops too.

Posted by Steven Alexander Shaver on 10/29/2014 at 5:45 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

26 countries ban GMOs - why won't the U.S.?

This is the title of article in The Nation, 10.29.13. There is almost no independent science and of course no long-term studies on what effects GMO foods have on humans. Big Ags scientists don't know - or they're not telling - what new diseases are the result of eating GMO foods. Never seen before autoimmune diseases that are showing up now may be linked to GMOs. Independent research needs to be done. In the meantime, label GMO raw and processed foods. Give consumers the facts needed to choose. VOTE YES on 105.…

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by curious on 10/29/2014 at 12:35 PM

Re: “Endorsements: From parks to personhood

Re: Amendment 68 I hate it when they try to get us to vote for something by tying it to education funding. Let's fund education the right way and not depend on things like this. I'm wholly uninterested one way or the other in gambling but because they tied it to education I'm voting NO.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by jbmonco on 10/29/2014 at 7:29 AM

Re: “Cheat sheet

Watch this video and tell me again why you endorsed Wayne Williams? I, for one, voted for Joe Neguse.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by jbmonco on 10/29/2014 at 7:14 AM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

To 'none of the above'; who said anything about Organic? There's a HUGE difference between GMO free and organic foods. Huge.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Kimberly Neall Bloomer on 10/29/2014 at 2:59 AM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

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.

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by howdy on 10/28/2014 at 5:33 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

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.

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by curious on 10/27/2014 at 2:50 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

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.

6 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Steven Alexander Shaver on 10/27/2014 at 12:57 AM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

Steven Alexander Shaver is a MONSANTO Troll. Gets paid to lie, confuse and deceive. Vote YES on 105

7 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by R. Smith on 10/26/2014 at 11:11 AM

Re: “Endorsements: From parks to personhood

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.

0 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Ian Campbell on 10/25/2014 at 6:25 PM

Re: “Cheat sheet

here your answer,…

0 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Dan H on 10/25/2014 at 5:48 PM

Re: “Cheat sheet

Why do you oppose ammendment 68?

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Ian Campbell on 10/25/2014 at 12:00 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

So you're going to just discount the studies in the GENERA database?

5 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Steven Alexander Shaver on 10/23/2014 at 2:03 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

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.

5 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Kelly Alexandre on 10/22/2014 at 9:04 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

Thought we were already living under the everything is GMO unless labeled non-gmo or organic. The wording does not seem close enough to the real intent.

2 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by TruB on 10/20/2014 at 9:02 PM

All content © Copyright 2014, The Colorado Springs Independent   |   Website powered by Foundation