This is going to bite Mayor Comb-Over in the ass when he runs for Governor......
Agreed Joel. My apologies.
He's being paid to say negative things about mj legalization
More Coloradans favor legalization now than when the law passed.
The National Rifle Association was created in 1871 and until about 1970 was apolitical, only becoming a lobby when forced to do so by the active attacks on the right to self-defense and the means to defend life.
No attempt to repeal the Second Amendment has been proposed in Congress except for a few really radical lawmakers. Their proposals never got to a vote because only about ten states would ratify such an amendment.
But this has not prevented many local laws banning certain or even all firearms during the past fifty years.
When I joined the NRA over 50 years ago, an oath was required, to support the Constitution. A person also needed a sponsor to join, a judge, police officer, military officer or another NRA member. These requirements were struck down by a law suit that claimed it was discrimination.
The NRA supports all of the Bill of Rights and all of the Constitution. The NRA has an elected Board of Directors that includes men and women, and all races.
The NRA has always supported "reasonable" firearms laws. The argument is about what is reasonable and effective at controlling the dangerous individuals. Ultimately, the only protection is having the possibility of armed defense at every potential point of attack. Since to properly guard the 10, 20,000 schools and school students in the United States would require at least 1,000,000 armed police officers doing nothing but guarding the schools, in addition to the officers now enforcing traffic, parking, and other duties.
The simple fact is the USA would have to become a Police State if total security is demanded. We cannot afford this financially and nor can freedom survive if we are a police state with a cop on every corner and in each hallway and floor in every school.
I hate that this is happening! The Springs DIY book culture scene is pretty tint, and now it's probably done for good. I'd be curious if something can be done to help them recover and raise funds to get them going again.
This is why we can't have nice things.
"...sounds like a term Podesta would use to make excuses for Donna Brazile,"--sounds like a taunt Trump would use to make excuses for his shameless dependence on Vladimir Putin.
Ad hominem was issued by you, sir..."misconceptions created by your assertions." What I pointed out was your failure to tell the whole story. That would be ad factum.
Did not forget, Mr. Miller. Mr. Cox was indeed the City Manager, interim or not. ad hominem statements about me are not really necessary. I admit to my part in this endeavor and make no excuses.
The warmth and character of my fellow citizens of Colorado Springs never ceases to amaze me. Faith doesnt matter, we are all citizens of the human race. Im proud to call this city home.
And by "clearing up," you mean to deceive readers by stating that it was the "City Manager" in charge of 2/3 of the Title Board? Certainly you knew she had resigned and was replaced in the interim by none other then Bach's future Chief of Staff, Steve Cox--one more guy that benefited immensely from the strong mayor. Guess you must have forgotten that one, Kevin.
"Misconceptions created by your assertions" sounds like a term Podesta would use to make excuses for Donna Brazile. Please show how the complete lack of checks and balances in the form of government you orchestrated is a "misconception."
The strong mayor form of government is a complete disaster. Horrible deal for the citizens. Great deal for Jenkins and Anschutz, the owners of Colorado Springs.
I only try to clear up the misconceptions created by your assertions. I am proud of that change and my part in it. I believe it has and will reap benefits for the City.
Not that "overwhelming" given the nearly $1 million spent by the prime beneficiary (benefit-reaping continues every day) of the change convincing the public in not so honest terms. That's almost $3 per registered voter spent to get a 59-41 vote with 54% turnout. For that amount of money along with frustration that streetlights got turned off and park grass died, it should have been a landslide. Jill Stein could be the next president if she had $3 per registered voter to spend.
Discussion of the Strong Mayor issue always seems to strike a nerve with you, Kevin. Look, I know you're very interested in clearing your culpability for being the facilitator, if not the architect, of a change that has ushered a heretofore unseen level of cronyism in Colorado Springs, but in the end, it doesn't matter. This is what we have until somebody has as much money to: 1) pay a guy like you to facilitate its undoing as you were paid and 2) spend a million more to expose the reality of what has happened to the electorate. Probably not going to happen, especially considering the direct impact to the bottom line of the beneficiary of the current system. I suspect every dollar spent to undo it would be matched 3 to one. Even with that massive expenditure, keeping the current system would still be a good investment for those who pushed the change.
Regarding the Title Board...the hierarchy was MUCH different in 2010. It would have taken a City Manager firing the members of the Title Board and HIS job was under the scrutiny of nine elected officials--not all of whom were elected with hundreds of thousands by the same proponent and beneficiary of the change.
Also--I'm sure you remember, Kevin--the City manager had resigned in March of 2010 and was replaced by interim, Steve Cox. The Strong Mayor issue was submitted to the Title Board in May and two of the three members (not like the three out of three in the current system) were under Cox. This is the same Cox who would later serve in a large city-paid salary position, in addition to drawing his full retirement salary and severance, as one of the first strong mayor's Chiefs of Staff. It sounds like the twisted tales of the Clinton Foundation.
The case now, under the change you orchestrated, is that there are absolutely no checks and balances whatsoever. One mayor--elected with half a million of the same sources of money--who need only say the word and all three members of the Title Board could be terminated. The only additional setup required--also deliberately orchestrated--was to intentionally spend the additional cash to get a hothead in as the first strong mayor. He then clearly illustrated to anyone who doubted how it would work--that firings of anyone except the auditor and the Utilities CEO can take place without any oversight or scrutiny whatsoever. [Your boss from back then is still trying to change the utilities part.]
Mr. Miller, At the time it was proposed, the Council Mayor proposal had to face the same scrutiny by the Title Board constituted with the same ex officio membership as it is today. The Title Board members were appointed by the City Council and they were hardly friends of the proposal; a majority were against the proposal in the end. The then City Attorney and City Clerk reported to the City Manager who was going to lose their job if the measure was passed so it was hardly a friendly gauntlet to run. We prepared for the possibility that it would be turned down. It was deemed sufficiently single subject - the executive of the City was changed from the City Manager to a popularly elected Mayor. That simple idea did necessitate numerous places in the charter for written changes but still a single subject. And in the end, it was the voters who overwhelmingly supported the change.
SD 20's ballot item is NOT a mill levy INCREASE! It is a debt increase, but the mill levy rate STAYS THE SAME.
Nospincs get your facts straight !!!! I'm fact section 8 recipients have to go through stringent background and criminal checks. Not everyone on section 8 are bad people. Like under any circumstances there are good and bad people everywhere. It is not because they have a section 8 voucher you moron.
A great book on this subject can be found here: https://amzn.com/0998088005
Jim - The time is now to begin discussions to close the Incline and Barr Trail because of people like you. Perhaps a trail fee of $10 per person per day or more would maybe cover most of the millions it costs. This so called trade is the worst real estate deal ever for the citizens! It provides zero money for the millions it costs. Even if the trade goes through, without a trail fee, the Incline is doomed. We can call it the Jim Davies fee. What is your solution Jim other than freeloading off the citizens?
And saying "It's not about Strawberry Fields" is naive at best, dishonest at worst. Dropping the retroactivity would get the measure on the ballot, but it's all about Strawberry Fields, so that won't happen. Why May 1st? Because it's all about Strawberry Fields.
Calling this process "secret" is laughable. There were over 20 public meetings over a period of four months before the council voted.
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation