Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

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

Comment Archives: stories: Columns: Regional View

Re: “John Muir shoots video

“The fact is, the directive pertains to commercial photography and filming only – if you’re there to gather news or take recreational photographs, no permit would be required." http://www.fs.fed.us/news/releases/us-fore…

Posted by Randi Hitchcock on 11/23/2014 at 7:37 PM

Re: “John Muir shoots video

I don't understand...did the author miss where they clarified that permits are for commercial filming only, like movie production, and do not apply to journalists? What an important non-issue you've sensationalized here. Really making a strong case for the worth and integrity of your work.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Ryan Brosmer on 11/19/2014 at 11:36 AM

Re: “A trigger point: Mark Hummels' killing

Did Gary Flakes cause less pain and suffering by SHOOTING or helping to SHOOT and covering up the Valentines Day SHOTGUN deaths of two innocent boys in 1997? Act against gun violence, vote against Gary FLakes for Colorado Springs city council. Question those that support him. Do it for Mark Hummels and other victims of gun violence.

2 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by bmused on 02/06/2013 at 7:04 AM

Re: “A trigger point: Mark Hummels' killing

I am one of those old-timers, heartbroken when I learned that it was our Mark Hummels. The first time I spoke with Mark I was a sophomore in high school, calling the offices of The Independent inquiring about a tour of the paper to meet a class requirement. The paper had only been publishing a short time, and when he answered the phone he told me to come by the office Tuesday after school. Mark showed me the basics of getting the paper ready for press that week, and found myself there every week for two more years. The Independent in those early days was my home away from home, and was like a family to me. Mark was the big brother I looked up to as a role model. He was funny and eccentric and the smartest guy in the room. I went that week in January 1994 to volunteer and learn about newspapers, I went every subsequent week because I was learning about life. To me, it felt like home, largely due to Mark’s guidance. He was fun and easygoing and got along with everyone. I wasn’t surprised to learn he graduated top of his class or that he was beloved by all who met him. Mark was an all-around great guy, and will always be regarded as an influential character in my life’s narrative. I am fortunate to have had the time I did with him, and value his impact on me.

11 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Jennifer Wood on 02/06/2013 at 6:01 AM

Re: “Sequestration's other victims

What everyone who reads your posts can plainly see, smartestman, is that you never even bother to try to prove any of your crazy assertions, preferring to use catch phrases like, "EVERYONE [sic] knows..." and "Everyone DOES [sic] know..." as if capitalizing the words constitutes some sort of evidence or logical argument.

You are trying to force everyone who disagrees with you to prove you are wrong, which is much easier than proving you are right, a task that always eludes your abilities. What makes your job particularly easy is your mindless rejection of all the proofs that do demonstrate you are wrong, again without any supporting facts or logic.

Which leads to the conclusion that nothing you say ought to be believed on face value. In other words, nobody believes that all public schools are failing, and nobody believes the ones that can be shown to be failing, are failing due to union activities. (In fact, nobody has ever defined in this forum what "failing" actually means in this context.) Everyone knows that inadequate tax bases and education budget cuts are responsible for any failures in the public school system.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Mr. K-- on 10/17/2012 at 12:13 PM

Re: “Sequestration's other victims

Another example of how your union-free education was not worth the money you paid for it, smartestman: your legendary inability to read simple sentences with comprehension. I wrote that I was amused because conservatives do not blame the kids when they fail. I never wrote that we ought to "blame the kids" earlier, but I will say so now. I also said earlier, no conservative blames the parents, but you missed that part, smartestman, as well. I will say now that I do blame the parents. While we are at it, let's be even-handed and blame the administrators and local Boards of Education, too.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Mr. K-- on 10/17/2012 at 11:47 AM

Re: “Sequestration's other victims

By the way, smartestman, your alma mater owes you a refund. They should have taught you that "Everyone knows..." is not a logical argument and proves absolutely nothing. You have not even established that public schools are failing, much less that unions are behind the so-called failure.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Mr. K-- on 10/17/2012 at 12:21 AM

Re: “Sequestration's other victims

I find it quite amusing that conservatives are always telling us individuals need to take responsibility for their own lives and quit blaming "society" and others for their failures. Yet, when it comes to education, all of a sudden the precious children are not to blame for their own failures, all of a sudden the parents have no responsibility, all of a sudden it is the fault of the teachers, "unions," and "society!"

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Mr. K-- on 10/17/2012 at 12:15 AM

Re: “Sequestration's other victims

I agree with Smartestman...

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by TejonTech on 10/15/2012 at 10:42 PM

Re: “Sequestration's other victims

The problem is stingy citizens who pay lip service to better education but continue to cut school budgets and blame teachers for the problems they have created, to assuage their guilt, if they have any, and divert attention away from their own complicity.

In addition, smartestman, is "not interested in indirectly supporting the Democratic party." Meaning, he does not believe teachers ought to earn enough to be able to contribute a few spare dollars to the political party of their choice.

5 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Mr. K-- on 10/15/2012 at 5:30 PM

Re: “Let's talk about sex, please

On the contrary, religion treats sex as a beautiful thing - inside of marraige. [I would suggest you read Song of Solomon, for an example of erotic love in scripture]. It is when sex is treated as *cheap* that women and men do not realize their worth, leading to all manner of depression, and immorality. The 50% divorce rate is a sad testament to this culture of cheap sensuality over lasting love and commitment.

How many can say

"Place me like a seal over your heart,
Like a seal upon your arm,
For love is as strong as death,
Its jealousy unyielding as the grave,
It burns like a blazing fire,
like the very flame of the Lord.
Many waters cannot quench love;
Rivers cannot sweep it away.
If one were to give
all the wealth of one's house for love
it would be utterly scorned"

In a world where marraige is treated like an easily broken contract, sex is handed out like a freebie, a woman's body and heart is not cherished, and chastity is looked down upon? Even the Romans, with all their excesses, highly respected the virtue of chastity!

***
Guns are tools, they cannot fire without a person using them. One does not need a gun to kill. While you may be willing to give up essential liberty for the idea of perceived safety (and how the idea of criminals having guns, vs. trained citizens, is safe is beyond me), the only way you may suceed in this endeavor is by constitutional amendment.

All attempts at going around the constitution, via UN treaties or local laws, are illegal. While you may find these intrusions to your liking at the moment, what happens when government intrudes upon a liberty you wish to *keep*?

Our government is not the granter or remover of liberties [like Canda's constitution has]. It is only the protector of libterties.

A citizen, politician or otherwise, is free to engage in the public or private worship or God [Such as early presidents like Adams and Washington calling for optional days of prayer, fasting, or thanksgiving to God, often on the encouragement of congress, or Benjamin Franklin calling the Continental congress to prayer, or Jefferson attending church in the U.S. Capitol Building]. They are not free to enforce the mandatory worship of God on anyone else, or penalties for not worshiping God. Likewise, an irreligious politician is free to not worship God as he pleases, but may not enforce irreligion, or enact penalities for worshiping God and the particulars of any given faith.
It is understandable that religious people are active in politics, considering that it was Christians in the vast majority which founded America - not to give up their faith, but to be free from the opressive yoke of England. There was not a divide between the religious and the revolutionaries - indeed, not only were many pastors and churches involved, but most of the founders themselves were christian and had a great deal of Biblical knowledge. They did not come to start a theocracy, but rather to create a country where they would be free to excercise their faith (even in the public sphere, which was not allowed in Britain) without reprisal for having differing views than their neighbor or the government.

If you feel "guilt" for any action of yours, you must consider whether it is false guilt [such as someone trying to make you appease *their* conscience] or genuine guilt due to conviction: your spirit within you is telling you that, indeed, you are doing something wrong. Blaming the messenger then becomes futile, like yelling at the fireman whose telling you to get out of the burning house.

Forcing a religious group or religious person to violate their faith, and either abstain from religious activity (such as prayer where people might hear or see!), or conversly engage in something opposed to their beliefs (like supporting murder), is directly contrary to the constitution; The government may not restrict the free excercise of religion in any way.

Religion itself cannot grant the right to murder, steal, or enslave (supercede other natural rights granted by God), of course, but that is not due to the restriction of government, but that religious freedom runs into a natural limit.

Lastly, no amount of yelling at the religious right or at christians is going to make them support murder.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Jenai Goss on 08/15/2012 at 3:51 PM

Re: “Let's talk about sex, please

@TT: You've been listening to a bit too much Limbah.
And the answer to your question is no, this article was not written by Sandra Fluke, who asked that her health insurance cover birth control, just like it covers E.D. treatment (viagra).

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by gregR on 08/06/2012 at 3:09 PM

Re: “Let's talk about sex, please

Is this the woman in the Obama ad saying she thinks we all need to chip in to pay for her birth control...sure as long as she wants to pay for my wine and cheese.

What a goof ball!

1 like, 4 dislikes
Posted by TejonTech on 08/05/2012 at 7:59 PM

Re: “Let's talk about sex, please

Religion is the reason for this insanity about sex.

Religions demonize sexual activity and heap tons of guilt, shame and fear on the topic so they can control people and therefor control their votes. The worst is the Catholic church, but they're all guilty of heaping scorn on sexual activity.

I despise the religious right for sticking its fat old white noses into politics and equally despise the GOP for playing up to lying assholes like Perkins, Dobson, Robertson, Hagee, et al.

8 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by OldCrank on 08/04/2012 at 11:21 AM

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