Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

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

Comment Archives: stories: News

Re: “Stepping up Piñon Canyon use

AND new landing zones in the mountains:
and new army use of the AF landing strip out east of town: Bullseye:

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by CSaction on 11/05/2014 at 7:21 AM

Re: “Off to the races

It's clear to me that, in this voter guide, you're not interested in presenting both sides fairly and justly. Through this, you've demonstrated that you're grossly one-sided and partisan. We get enough partisan politics on a regular basis; we don't need more of it from you. Of course, I shouldn't be surprised at your one-sided-ness here, given that you're just another media outlet dedicated to a one-size-fits-all mentality, and like most other media outlets, you don't really care about informing us and helping us to think independently. You clearly have an agenda--again, like most media--and, for me, you've proven that you're untrustworthy. I'm a thinking, independent American--as we all should be--and I don't trust you to give me the kind of unbiased report I want.

1 like, 2 dislikes
Posted by Becky Artman on 11/04/2014 at 5:35 PM

Re: “This could leave a mark

Even has a NAZI sounding name!

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Ronald E Griffey on 11/04/2014 at 9:54 AM

Re: “Colorado Springs pot delivery stretches the law

This article is almost 2 years old. has there been any updated news on where this is going for 2015? Very good info BTW!

Posted by Jym Fair on 11/03/2014 at 8:53 AM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

Re dirty tricks article: "In Colorado for example, the “no” campaign has Don Ament as its spokesman in a TV ad opposing GMO labeling. Ament is identified as a “former agriculture commissioner for the Colorado Department of Agriculture,” which is true. But his LinkedIn profile listed his role as a lobbyist for J. Andrew Green and Associates for the past 24 years. Apparently, once word of this got out, Ament scrubbed that job from his profile; an experienced lobbyist, after all, is out of step with the “farmer” image the ads try to portray."

As for the lie that GMO labeling will increase food costs hundreds of dollars, Consumers Union reports the likely cost will be $2.30 annually.

The Food Industry says GMO products are economically and socially and environmentally good. And they're safe to eat. So why don't they spend their millions on a campaign promoting the health benefits of eating GMOs? Media advertising can be built around the catchy slogan, "Have you had your GMOs today?"

10 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by curious on 11/02/2014 at 1:54 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

Lot's of dirty tricks being carried out by Coca-Cola, Pepsi, DuPont, Monsanto, etc.
Story is here:…

9 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by OldCrank on 11/01/2014 at 9:47 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

Given you are not a scientist, Mr. Shaver, how would you know that not one of the "1700+ studies" makes no such connection? Even if you read every one of those studies, you do not have the background to understand a single one. Most likely you have read an opinion piece that purports to sum up all of those studies. Which means that the industry does not need to buy off every single scientist doing study in the field. They only need to buy off a handful of journalists.

Speaking of "bullshit," you repeat a specious argument that I have already debunked as thoroughly illogical and unscientific. What Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, and BP can or cannot do, have or have not done, has absolutely no bearing on what Monsanto or Dow Chemical can or cannot do, have or have not done. The fact that you repeat this nonsense, knowing it has already been exposed as false equivalence, demonstrates the utter bankruptcy of your position.

8 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by Mr. K-- on 11/01/2014 at 10:56 AM

Re: “Gotcha covered

So, if the system is operated by volunteers, why does the photo show a policeman in front of it?

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by CSIndyReader on 10/31/2014 at 6:56 PM

Re: “Gotcha covered

This is troubling and straddling the line as far as what is legal to employ for law-enforcement to use without a warrant. Information or intel gathered this can have far reaching effects. Listening devices and other high-tech items can make police work easier but in troubled areas a police presence is preferred.
I have talked to person's who think police can use a K-9 anytime they want which means the do not know their own Rights. If it were true about K-9s then every officer would have one. I have heard another phrase oft repeated "Police can do anything they want". That is a telling thought and is indicative that people believe we are in or close to a "police state". I wonder sometimes myself...
Which makes me recall the recent funeral for a K-9 in Oklahoma. I saw that online and thought that those people were out of their minds. "The dog loved his job" comments were all over. Excuse me but that animal had no idea he had a job and that he may very well end up dead. Would the dog have gone into harms way knowing this? I see it as animal abuse on the part of police. Using K-9s in "The War On Drugs" conjures memories of German soldiers. If it is a War then use tanks and missiles but I advise is stop this War now. It is a political motivated War and nothing about it creates a safer public just fear.

4 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by Robert Wyman on 10/31/2014 at 1:24 PM

Re: “Design matters

Great piece. Keep up the amazing work Ryan.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Jon Dale on 10/30/2014 at 11:11 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

Given the 1700+ studies done. Surely there would be one connecting the two?

And it's bullshit to say that they're all bought and paid for. Also a terrible gambit.

If Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, and BP can't pay off a majority of Climate Scientists. What makes you think that "Big Ag" can "pay off" all the studies done in the Biotech industry?

6 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by Steven Alexander Shaver on 10/30/2014 at 10:18 AM

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.

0 likes, 3 dislikes
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.

5 likes, 4 dislikes
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.

0 likes, 2 dislikes
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?

5 likes, 3 dislikes
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" ...

4 likes, 8 dislikes
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.

3 likes, 9 dislikes
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.…

8 likes, 6 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.

4 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

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