Best of the Web for Feb. 18


The following comments were made on stories posted to The posters' usernames are included

Stanford's column was bizarre

So (Scott Stanford), her fellow Texan, devotes a whole column to Anna Nicole in which he rails against all the attention she got/gets in the media! It's beyond ironic. It's laughably bizarre. Wow.


Hysteria runs amok

Oh, the hysterics! I can hear them coming... Seriously, if (GRAMNET) is such a good program, why'd Grand County and the Feds drop out? Oh wait-was this a product of Clinton's short term federally funded mandate of so mahyn thousand new police officers on the street? On the bright side, this means that our jail won't be overcrowded with smelly String Cheese fans next time they come to town. The downside is that a few more dim-witted locals can kill their brain cells on the gondola without fear of a GRAMNET bust at the top.


Ken discredits Ken

Let me see if I've got this right. Ken Brenner admits asking for free golf passes for himself and other Council members, and (Towny) Anderson says it's all a plot to discredit Ken? Looks to me as if Brenner doesn't need any help being discredited because he's doing a pretty good job of it himself. Wonder how much more is out there.


No grandstanding here

I fail to see how this amounts to political grandstanding or going for blood. Ken has done enough to bring this on himself, and frankly deserves every bit of it. Asking for golf passes, no matter how innocent he makes it sound, is way out of line for an elected official. Are we supposed to lie down while they seek personal gain as a result of their election to council? The former council members deserve respect, credit, and the attention of the town.


Clear the turf

When will our wonderful new turf field be cleared? Spring sports start soon. Many, many people stepped up to make that a reality so our athletes could use it. What is going on?


Dissecting Savage words

Regarding Henry Savage's letter to the editor of Feb. 14: Mr. Savage I really am intrigued by your idea about "adaptation strategy." I agree with that thinking and believe that we should pursue that scientific philosophy. As for the remainder of the article, I think that you use a lot of words to say nothing productive. I love when an ostentatious lexicon is employed in an effort to confound. Alas, you have played on our utter incapacity to comprehend. RighteeO, my boy! Confuse us and you shall win the day. I would rather you have tried to say something that would cause me to think long enough to consider discussing with my children. But that doesn't seem to be the case, because apart from adaptation strategy, I have already forgotten what you said. Oh the longevity of a windy diatribe. Have you forgotten mine yet?


Attorneys bend truth

Attorneys are trained to stand in front of a jury and tell the same lie over and over in the hope that somebody will believe it. Attorneys are the ONLY people in a courtroom who are not required to tell the truth when they speak. They can put forth any "reasonable" argument as a theory of defense and then it's up to the prosecutor to tell a more believable story. The truth is not the truth in a courtroom. "Proof" sufficient to convince a jury, even if wholly false, is the only requirement.



Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.