Ken Collins: Health trumps dollars

Advertisement

In the past few days, the good health of Americans got in a combination one-two punch.

Not a TKO by any means, but hopefully, the first of barrages to protect those who want a safe and healthy future. Corporate America and those who worship at the altar of the dollar and disregard the welfare of America’s health will come back fighting. But the right side won a round.

First, let’s talk GMO, or genetically modified organisms. Just the sound should creep you out. They’re everywhere. But now in Vermont, GMOs hopefully will have to be labeled on all food products. Not banned, just labeled.

But most of the food producers in America say that’s not necessary — no health issues, and it would cost too much. When you genetically modify something, how in the world do you know it might not be bad, soon or down the line? You don’t. Mutations are genetically modified. GMOs can’t be organic either.

Cost too much? Adding to the label would add about 4 to 10 cents. That’s chump change when it comes to being able to make a choice on what you put into your body. Having a choice to buy or not to buy is all we’re asking. And the biggest pro-GMO company? Monsanto. Enough said.

Now, let’s talk KXL. President Obama put a further hold on what is the worst energy idea to come down the pike, especially from Canada. I like Canadians but hate their environmental record, especially outside Canada. I’ve seen their results in South America.

But Keystone is a trophy case of bad ideas. The number of jobs it will provide is grossly overstated, and even then, a lot will go to non-Americans. The price of oil will not drop at all because it’s headed for the refineries in the Gulf that are mainly for overseas distribution.

China would love Keystone to go through our breadbasket and aquifers. Canada gets the money, China gets the oil and we get a lethal pipeline made from cheap foreign steel carrying extremely corrosive bitumen tarsands that are far more toxic than any other energy source from a company that has a terrible environmental track record.

Winnipeg just had a TransCanada pipeline explosion a few days ago. Arkansas had a tarsands blowout a few months ago that still isn’t cleaned up. And the tarsands are coming to us because British Columbia said “take a hike” to TransCanada. And they’re turning the Alberta Athabasca region into a hell on Earth. If we’re to gamble on our health, water and air, let’s keep it to fracking.

So, thank you Vermont. May you be the first of 50 states. And thank you Obama for at least delaying a horrible idea. These issues aren’t left versus right, or liberal versus conservative. They are right versus wrong.

Ken Collins

Stagecoach

Comments

Ken Collins 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Steve, 75% of Americans want more gun registration and Congress hasn't moved on that. And who says the American public is very knowledgeable about scientific things. Read the gas station signs, guys. We are now #1 on natural gas production, at the top of oil production. And our gas prices are still going up. Why? Wasn't fracking going to save our wallets? Because the oil companies are selling more to overseas markets. When are you folks going to realize Big Oil doesn't give a damn about America, but it loves American cash. Look at the photos of the tarsand region in Alberta and ask yourself if America should be a part of that for the benefit of Canada and China. If you like Canadian oil so much, move to Canada. Oh right. They have universal health care. Scratch that.

2

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

The Keystone Pipeline issue is exactly like ethanol was 20 years ago. Religious environmentalists crusade to impose their will resulted in a terrible product (ethanol) being forced on the American consumer and being subsidized by the American taxpayer. Ethanol production depletes aquifers; something religious environmentalists claim to want to protect.

Mr Collins also fails to mention that Mr Obama was recently bought off by San Fransisco billionaire Tom Steyer, who pledged $100m to Democrats if the pipeline was halted. Did you "forget" that part, Ken??

An $8Billion project denied for a mere $100m in bribes!

The tar- oil WILL come out of the tar-sands of Alberta whether the KXL gets built or not.

That oil WILL come to America whether KXL gets built or not. It already is, and it's not going to stop. In fact, it is already comming in to America by rail.

The US State Department has stated that the KXL would be a CLEANER method and a SAFER method of transport than the rail cars currently transporting that oil right through the middle of American towns like Steamboat Springs. That means the KXL is MORE environmentally friendly than the currently used alternative.

Mr. Collins and his ilk are on the wrong side of this issue, just as most Americans now clearly understand they were with ethanol.

2

Ken Mauldin 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Ken C: Imagine 75% of Americans wanted to limit personal income to $150,000/yr with a 100% confiscatory tax for every dollar over $150,000. Would you support that policy based on the will of the majority?

Should there be any limits at all on what the majority can impose on a minority? How should those limits be defined?

Why have a Constitution at all if you prefer the shifting whims of the masses?

2

Ken Collins 7 months, 3 weeks ago

KM, you ask me a question that you must also ask Mendell. The majority of Americans can be and often are, wrong. At the ballot box is the only place a majority should always be taken. But that doesn't mean it's right. Some will point to 2004, others to 2008/12. Although there was a significant difference in the margins of those victories. We won't mention 2000. MH, I was never a proponent of ethanol. Bad idea. And you say the tarsand oil will "come to America". Wrong. It will come though America and on to Asia and Europe. They pay better. I'm against tarsand bitumen, not all oil pipelines.

1

Ken Mauldin 7 months, 3 weeks ago

KC: I agree that the question should be posed to Steve M in light of his majority opinion argument for KXL and hope he'll take a moment to respond.

While we wait for his response, how do you respond?
Should there be limits on what a majority can impose on a minority? If so, how should those limits be defined?

0

Ken Mauldin 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Steve: There's certainly a big difference between 'majority rule' where national infrastructure policy is concerned and the compromise of an individual's Natural Rights.

Thanks for making that point.

1

Fred Duckels 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I find it interesting that Ken's input always seem to bite the hand that feeds him or to put it another way, to go after the private sector that produces all the wealth that we enjoy. His concern for health, safety pollution, environment, elderly, war on women, equal pay, minimum wage, gay and lesbian and last but not least the poor little children is noble but it seems that it is only a diversion from the fact that our finances are in a shamble. Without a viable economy and living within our means all the rest will be lost. So the left can divert from reality with these ancillary items and hope that the voters take the bait.

4

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Oil is a fungible, Ken. Oil is sold on a WORLD market. Where one specifc gallon or barrel comes from or goes to is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. The oil from Alberta WILL come to the world market. Period. There is not one damned thing you whining temper-tanterum throwing religious fanatics can do to stop it, Ken... not one damn thing!

You said it just now yourself "It will come though (I think you mean through) America..." . You are absolutely right. It WILL and it IS comming through America.

Only a religious fanatic such as yourself would admit that fact, yet refuse to accept that the current method of transport is dirtier and more dangerous. Your position harms the US economy, harms the environment you claim to defend, endangers every citizen through whom's town those rail cars pass, and pisses on one of America's best neighbors.

And you don't give a damn about ANY of those FACTS because all you can see in your blind hatred of everything fossil, is that "pipelines are bad".

2

Fred Duckels 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Buffett lent his name to the Obama wagon as his best option to kill or delay the KXL so that Buffett's railroad could rake in the bucks. Sometimes a little capitalism can be tolerated if it furthers the agenda.

2

Chris Hadlock 7 months, 3 weeks ago

We need to find a way to get Steve Mendell on TV say he can join the Republican Hall of Fame with Akin, Bundy, Sterling, Engle, and O'Donnell.

I accept the results of the past elections as well as the upcoming ones in 2014, and 2016.

Do you, or will you revolt against your democratically elected Government because they will not agree with you.

Mendell, Duckels and Hartless - What will you do if the Republicans lose the next Presidential election? Revolt, or try to work within the system to bring a majority of Americans around to your point of view?

1

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I fully expect that Republicans WILL lose the next election. I don't plan to do anything about that except watch my country slowly slip into the abyss. I do not expect a majority of Americans will ever again in my lifetime hold my point of view, Chris. What, exactly does that have to do with lunatic religious fanatics destroying the environment just because they are so full of hate???

2

Ken Mauldin 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Chris: I appreciate your use of the 'majority rules' logic and hope you'll take a moment to respond to the same questions I've asked KC:

Should there be limits on what a majority can impose on a minority? If so, how should those limits be defined?

0

Chris Hadlock 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Yes, there should be limits on what the Majority can impose. Our current examples include racial profiling and gay marriage and/or College admission profiling.

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Parts of the 14th amendment were later modified by the 19th Amendment:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

This was commonly known as the Women's Suffrage act that gave all sexes the same rights as US Citizens.

I would say that the line is drawn when one group with opinions or lifestyles that are different than the majority are singled out for special benefits and/or treated differently for legal or tax purposes. Recent examples would be the decision about minorities in college admissions, Jim Crow Laws, or gay marriage bans. Politics and economics would not seem to fall under these areas as long as any federal laws, regulations or restrictions are applied equally across the nation.

State law would have similar ideals in that Utah and Colorado could treat the citizens very differently, but must treat all citizens within their borders the same.

Whether you like it or not, the Keystone decision does fall within the POTUS authority(Whomever that is) to approve or disapprove. Obama chose to delay Keystone once again. The reasons for this could be financial, political, good ol' boy backroom deals, or simply "Green Eggs and Ham". You can disagree with his decision, but the bottom line is that it remains his decision and his decision alone until the last day he is in office some 32 months away.

0

Chris Hadlock 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Read closer and try to keep up Steve. I believe that I addressed that. Quoting your own words does NOT make your point any more valid. You could at least plagiarize Wikipedia like Rand Paul or do too many sites disagree with you?

0

Chris Hadlock 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Hey Steve, make any progress with that Core dump I gave you????
Try some 8 bit EBCDIC.

0

rhys jones 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I tried ASCII and didn't get anywhere with it.

0

Ken Collins 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Chris, you beat me to the punch. I wonder what the guys calling me an idiot and a liar will do when Hillary wins in '16, steps down to ride off in the sunset w/Bill to do more charity work, unlike W, and Elizabeth Warren wins in 20 & 24. What country will they move to that mirrors their beliefs?
Ken M, I couldn't answer nearly as well as Chris so I defer to his answer. But maybe climate change will make all this irrelevant by then. We'll be ducking from tornadoes/hurricanes/frackquakes and swimming at the coast of Colorado, as Rusty Weir once sang.

0

Chris Hadlock 7 months, 3 weeks ago

That is good coming from one who consistently quotes his own words as validation of his opinion.

0

Ken Mauldin 7 months, 3 weeks ago

You seem awfully confident that an electoral majority of Americans share your views. Something about pride coming before the fall comes to mind.

Ask yourself the same question: If the House and Senate go to conservatives this Fall and remain in 2016 with a constitutional-conservative President will you leave America? Will you foment revolution?

I suspect the liberal democrats could spend a generation in the political wilderness for the economic wrath their progressive policies have caused over the last few years. Of course, that's just my humble opinion.

2

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

A woman once snootely told Winston Churchill he was drunk. His reply was "Yes, I'm drunk, but you are ugly. Tomorrow I will be sober, and you, madam, will still be ugly." Well, Ken... even if Hillary is elected, made a lifetime monarch, even cannonized... you will STILL be exactly what you are, Ken... a religious fanatic environmentalist who is so full of hate that you are willing to support the unnecessary destruction of the environment just to poke a stick in the eye of something you have been taught in your church to hate; namely oil pipelines.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Mr Collins, I will not call you an idiot or a liar. You do have an inclination to spew falsehoods. I am happy to enlighten you. In a previous post you said "Hillary wins in '16, steps down to ride off in the sunset w/Bill to do more charity work, unlike W,". And might I ask what do you base your opinion that W. does no charity work. My guess is you were not a big W. supporter but really, to imply he does no charitable work. Do you do any research before you post as it appears to me you just rant with no care whether what you are posting has any factual basis. Actually as I have read your posts it really should not be a surprise. Still waiting for your reply to my post on a different string regards the fact that more US soldiers have died since 2009 in Afghanistan then from 2001 through 2008. For your information, George W. Bush has supported the following charities: Airlift Research Foundation Clinton Bush Haiti Fund Kids Wish Network National Park Foundation Operation Smile PeacePlayers International Red Cross Susan G. Komen for the Cure The Salvation Army

Causes supported 19

Abuse, AIDS & HIV, At-Risk/Disadvantaged Youths, Cancer, Children, Conservation, Disaster Relief, Economic/Business Support, Environment, Family/Parent Support, Grief Support, Health, Homelessness, Human Rights, Miscellaneous, Peace, Philanthropy, Senior Citizen Support, Veteran/Service Member Support

2

Chris Hadlock 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Ken, My words from above:

"I accept the results of the past elections as well as the upcoming ones in 2014, and 2016. Do you, or will you revolt against your democratically elected Government because they will not agree with you."

I give my full affirmation as to the legitimacy of the Federal Gov't regardless of who wins the upcoming elections. I ask each of you for the same as citizens of the United States. Should be easy for those that have served in the armed forces, you have taken that oath once already. Do you mean what you repeat by rote in the Pledge of Allegiance or are those just words that only apply to those you agree with.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Your so called "King Barrack" is actually your democratically elected president with all of the privileges and responsibilities of that position. Our next President will be the same as were ALL of the men elected to that position before them.

Politics and disagreements aside, all Americans should accept the legitimacy of the Gov't. Cliven Bundy and Mark Hartless included. I have long argued that discussion and debate are the proper forum not revolution. Remember, if you choose to start your own revolution here in Routt County, your first interaction with authority will be named Joel Rae or Garrett Wiggins.

Are you really prepared for that encounter with your neighbors. I for one hope that reason prevails and that those calling for such action are exposed as the extremists they are. Whether your ideals are liberal or conservative we should be able to discuss our differences and come to compromise solutions.

0

Robert Huron 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Dan You are correct that more Troops were killed in Afghanistan after 2009 than in the previous years. The reason was that in 2003 all resources were diverted to Iraq and Afghanistan was put on hold until we finally pulled out. That grossly mismanaged war cost of lives of 4855 American Troops plus tens of thousands severely injured. And what did we gain? The same people who lied us into Iraq like Dick Cheney are demanding we get involved in Syria, Iran and now Russia to show the world we are strong and we will attack any country that does not do what we tell them to. These same people refuse to pay for their wars and on top of that they or their children will never fight in a war(too rich to serve). War is great as long as someone else does the fighting and dying. Which is why we haven't really won a war since 1945. Bush has done charity work since leaving office as has Carter, Clinton and elder Bush which is why most Presidents are better liked as ex-Presidents than Presidents.

0

Ken Mauldin 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Chris: You're the one who implied others may revolt if they aren't satisfied with the next couple of elections. I simply asked the same of you. There's no need for such dramatics of who will meet who in Routt County should revolution break out.

You're the one that suggested a revolt-in-the-making and I asked you the same question to point out how extreme and ridiculous your assertion was. Point made. Thanks for your help.

0

Ken Mauldin 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Robert: How did Cheney lie us into Iraq? I'm curious.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Hey Robert, Thanks for acknowledging the charitable work of of past presidents including as Ken likes to call him, W. Now, can you acknowledge that the Democrat politicians were in favor of the Iraq war and can the revisionist, it's all Bush and Cheney's fault, history BS. From an article in Truthout Democrats Share the Blame for Tragedy of Iraq War Sunday, 17 March 2013 06:59 By Stephen Zunes, Truthout | Op-Ed "As a result, support for the resolution authorizing the Iraq War is not something that can simply be forgotten. There is no reason to be any more forgiving of Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, or Harry Reid than we are of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, or Condoleezza Rice."

0

Robert Huron 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Ken On 9/11/2001 Cheney demanded that Pres. Bush invade Iraq because Sadam was behind the attack. Bush refused because he was not convinced that Cheney was right. In 2003 Cheney told Bush that Sadam had acquired nuclear material from Africa and if we didn't invade we would have a mushroom cloud here in the US. Cheney made the same accusation on "Meet the Press". The truth was the CIA had told Cheney in Dec. 2002 that there was no evidence that Sadam had acquired any nuclear material. He kept this from Bush and he ordered the invasion in 2003 after his "State of the Union" address using Cheney's information to justify it . Scooter Libby, Cheney's Deputy took the fall for Cheney's misinformation and was convicted in Federal Court. When Bush refused to pardon Libby before they left office Cheney broke off all relations with Bush which continues today. Bottom line was Cheney wanted Sadam gone no matter what it took and who paid the price.

1

Ken Mauldin 7 months, 3 weeks ago

That's a thoughtful response. Here's my take on Bush/Cheney/Iraq: Considering that Saddam Hussein indiscriminately killed thousands of innocent civilians with chemical weapons (aka weapons of mass destruction), reasonable people don't bicker over whether he had them or not. It's delusional to believe that Saddam Hussein would not have attacked the US mainland with any sort of weaponized uranium if he had the chance.

In my mind, we only need to know that Saddam Hussein admitted to orchestrating an assassination attempt on a sitting US President to recognize that he had it coming.

0

Ken Mauldin 7 months, 3 weeks ago

While I personally support a robust free exchange of ideas to resolve the issues of social structure and public policy, there can be not doubt that our founders enshrined the 2nd Amendment to provide the citizenry and States with the practical means to resist and/or replace an oppressive or tyrannical government. James Madison made this point exceedingly clear in Federalist Paper #46.

Hopefully, citing Madison and the Federalist Papers isn't enough to have me removed from the forum. I guess I'm taking my chances!

2

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Chris, Would you please post my past comments in which I "called for armed revolution...".

1

Chris Hadlock 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Of all the attacks you could come up with how in the heck did you go there? In the words of Clint Eastwood. "Go ahead punk, make my day". This personal attack shows your true colors and is completely false.

0

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Chris Hadlock says: "... "Go ahead punk, make my day"... Is that a threat, Chris?? Are you threatening me with physical violence??

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 7 months, 3 weeks ago

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Voltaire Not sure why the paper would pull the plug. If so, is free speech just kind of free. He did not appear to shout "fire" in a crowded auditorium, at least in my opinion. I wonder if some one from the paper would weigh in on this.

0

jerry carlton 7 months, 3 weeks ago

There is no freedom of speech in the United States just as all other freedoms are slowly disappearing. Political correctness rules.

2

Robert Huron 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Sadam was an evil man who killed his own people like many dictators around the world. Remember we put the Shah of Iran in power in 1954. Sadam was no threat to the US. The 9/11 attackers were not from Iraq they where from mostly from Saudi Arabia. Pres. Bush and Dick Cheney welcomed the King of SA to his residence in Crawford and held hands. I know that because I was there. I don't hold that against him at all. The King had nothing to do with 9/11 just like Sadam But I do believe not one American life was worth the killing of one man let alone 4855 .

0

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Totally agree, Robert. Lots of evil men roughing up their own people. Always has been-always will be. Not America's job to clean up the entire world.

0

Ken Mauldin 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I agree that it's not our job to clean up the world. Saddam Hussein was an obvious threat to our allies in the region and US national security in general.

0

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

He was also a counterweight to Iran. We removed him and de-stabalized that balance, freeing Iran up to concentrate on it's nuke program. Going into Iran was a mistake, plain and simple.

0

rhys jones 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Wow. Censorship, no doubt about it. I've seen far worse in these forums, which was let stand. Nobody can say Steve didn't provide food for thought, whatever their orientation. What did he say that so offended, Pilot? He was basically harmless here; next thing ya know, he'll have signs by the courthouse, petitions to sign...

1

Ken Mauldin 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Not too long ago, Steve had pointed out a author's potential conflict of interest and that entire article was removed.

Did anyone see a post from him that would warrant a complete removal?

1

Kevin Nerney 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Chris H, I certainly don't want to speak for the Chief of Police or the Sheriff of RC (or any of the officers for that matter) but who's to say what they believe in their hearts and which direction their guns will be pointed when push comes to shove. I'm sure they all value their paychecks so they must bite their tongues on these sort of matters. I think it is time for a Constitutional Convention and enough states have signed up for one, it's just that no one has pulled the trigger yet.( pun intended).
Glad to see it's not just my computer when it comes to the comment side bar and Steve M 's comments,

0

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Yeah, what is up with the side-bar? Been messed up for a week or 2...

0

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Chris, Would you please post my past comments in which I "called for armed revolution...".

0

Chris Hadlock 7 months, 3 weeks ago

ALl of your most egregious comments have been removed and can no longer be found. In particular where you said someone should shoot Lois Werner. Are you going to deny that your previous moniker was "sledneck"?

1/7/2013 - Yes, I'm advocating that we disband the gubbamint... kill it before it kills us, so-to-speak.

1/7/2-13 - I'm advocating that we go back to hunting and gathering, as I think I would occupy a higher "station in life" in such a society

1/8/2013 = But if anyone ever wishes to verify my personal resolve and willingness to "verbalize" I would invite them to name a place and time.

4/17/2014 - The fact is that armed revolution DID make it a better nation. Without question... That is, in fact, the story of this nation. Armed opposition to tyranny has often improved mankind's lot in life. Conversely. it is actually the very aquiescensce and appeasement which you advocate that has rarely improved man's lot in life; and has often led to enslavement, fammine, tyrany, and genocide. Read your history books.

4/18/2014 - The fact is that armed revolution DID make it a better nation. Without question...

1

Chris Hadlock 7 months, 3 weeks ago

As Sledneck:

But there are several ways to vote... 1. at the polls 2. with your money 3. with your feet 4. with your finger 5. with your acp

Excuse me; can I please clarify... I am not anxious for armed revolution, not at all. I am far more comfortable today than were there an ongoing revolution. Nor do I contend that it is "THE" answer. With something like that, one never really knows until one tries, hmmmm? Yes, I do think it is comming and almost unavoidable. Now, you may continue ripping me a new one...

They have camps waiting for [us] and coffins..." 80 million people in this country own guns. Some of them probably have a little sompin-sompin waiting for "them" too. American civilians won't be the only ones in the coffins when that day comes, Howie.

At some point the evils will once again become more than people wish to suffer. You are right that for the time being a revolution is not in the forecast. Saying that you will not see one in your lifetime suggests you are more optimistic about this nations future than I. I hope you are right and I am wrong.

0

Chris Hadlock 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I also found lots and lots of these attributed to Mr. Hartless

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Chris Hadlock 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I do acknowledge that more often than not you quote the words of historical figures to buttress your opinion that armed revolution is necessary. A subtle difference I suppose, and quite useful when advocating extreme positions.

While I often attack your words and opinions, I try very hard not to delve into personal and character attacks. I am absolutely certain that I am not perfect in this regard but I will continue to try and debate the topic at hand without resorting to slanderous accusations.

0

Ken Mauldin 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Let's keep this in perspective: Calling for armed revolution in response to an oppressive or tyrannical government is not, by default, a bad thing. Our county's most celebrated heros; Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Jay, Hancock, et al, all spoke loudly in support of armed revolution. The United States of America was founded through armed revolution.

Let's not succumb to the PC thought and speech police on this one. Our form of self-government, by design, provides for armed revolution to replace a tyrannical government.

Perhaps Chris would like to explain why he thinks it's better to be enslaved by an entrenched tyrannical government than to overthrow it with arms. Would North Koreans be better off with a 2nd Amendment simile or does Chris think it's better that they live subject to being tortured and murdered by their own government without any semblance of Natural Rights or Due Process?

0

Chris Hadlock 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Are you comparing the US Gov't to North Korea? Come on Man! Democrats compared Bush to Hitler - BS. Republicans compare Obama to Hitler - BS US is a tyrannical Gov't - BS Obama is a dictator - BS

Tyrannical Gov't would be embodied by a POTUS declaring marshal Law, or extending his Presidency with emergency declarations. Sending the military into American cities like they did at Kent State might qualify. Or even what the police did in New Orleans after Katrina where they tried to confiscate all weapons. Do you see signs that any of this is happening? There is a difference between tyrannical Gov't, and decisions that you do not agree with.

Yes, I support the 2nd amendment but think you are foolish to believe that armed revolution would be good for America. Good Luck with that, I will protect me and mine, but will watch your little revolution implode just like the previous efforts of David Koresh or Timothy McVeigh who both thought they were revolting against the tyrannical Gov't.

Kevin, what would the goals of a Constitutional Convention be? It takes 2/3's of the states to create a Constitutional Amendment when we cannot even get 60% to agree that the sky is blue.(well not this week) .

1

Ken Mauldin 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Chris: You're slipping a bit on your "without resorting to slanderous accusations" code of conduct.

I'm not calling for revolution, so your reference to "your little revolution" is misguided and foolish. Next, comparing me directly to Koresh or McVeigh is childish, name-calling. You may want to read my post again to make sure you understand my question regarding North Korea. The only thing I compared was their tyrannical dictatorship and a proposed need for a 2nd Amendment simile within that culture to improve the condition of the North Korean people.

You responded to that with an anger-induced tyrade that included Bush and Hitler and a variety of boogey-men in a direct attempt to malign and attack me personally rather than respond to my points.

I'm believe the 'vast quiet majority of people' that read these forums recognize your personal attacks as a very weak retort.

0

Robert Huron 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Ken do you really want this country to turn into a Syria or a Ukraine just because you don't like who is in the White House? Armed revolt is nothing more than tyranny. The last thing this country needs is a bunch of Clive Bundy's running around with guns. We tried that once before and it was called the Civil War and we all know how that worked out.

0

Ken Mauldin 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Good Lord! Is it not possible to have a reasonable exchange without calling people names and demonizing them? I'm not suggesting (nor have I ever) that armed revolution is anywhere near a solution for what we are experiencing in the United States.

I think it's foolish to abandon the wisdom and experience of our founders. We all hope and pray that real revolution never returns to America. That explained, free people have a Natural Right to self-defense and States have sovereignty and authority under our Constitutional system. As for places like Syria and Ukraine, unfortunately for them, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison didn't write their founding documents that enshrined and protected Natural Rights; hence they have experienced cycles of armed revolution since we've had ours.

0

rhys jones 7 months, 3 weeks ago

You armed-revolution guys are just flapping your gums and wings. The Feds would squash you like bugs.

0

Ken Mauldin 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Rhys; It's strange that 5 minutes after I post "I'm not suggesting (nor have I ever) that armed revolution is anywhere near a solution for what we are experiencing in the United States." You respond with "you armed-revolution guys" (Plural). Who are you talking about?

I'm not wasting any more time on this thread where nobody takes the time to read the points and mocking, name-calling and the 'heckler's veto' is all that's left. That's not a meaningful discussion.

I've made my points and the responses are on the record.

0

rhys jones 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Ken -- "unfortunately for them, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison didn't write their founding documents that enshrined and protected Natural Rights; hence they have experienced cycles of armed revolution since we've had ours" makes no sense to me; it is supposedly those "National Rights" which guarantee our right to rebel. If you argued that their govts took away their guns, that might add to your arguments, but that is obviously not the case; there are plenty of those, bullets too.

It's not the false, poiliticallly-correct opinion you parade before the public -- it's what's in between the lines, that I'm reading.

"why he thinks it's better to be enslaved by an entrenched tyrannical government than to overthrow it with arms" sounds pretty blatant to me.

0

Chris Hadlock 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Ken, A slanderous personal attack reads more like "When did you stop slapping your wife?" or "You are a bald faced liar!" or "But if anyone ever wishes to verify my personal resolve and willingness to "verbalize" I would invite them to name a place and time." Those are personal attacks!

What I attacked was your support for revolution. I also attacked previous posters both local and elsewhere that consistently reference Hitler when trying to make their point. I specifically called those references BS.

Yes, I denigrated your little revolution, and maintain that previous efforts at "revolution" were misguided at best. If that hit to close to home, I apologize, but in re-reading my post I fail to find any personal animosity or anger directed at you personally. I do find much animosity and even anger against the idea that "armed insurrection (revolution)" would be a good thing for America in the world of today.

0

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Chris,

None of the statements you cite are a direct call for armed revolution.

Some predict it, some acknowledge it is possible, and some acknowledge the HISTORICAL FACT that armed revolution DID IN FACT occur and that it DID make this a better nation.

You go on to say "I will continue to try and debate the topic at hand without resorting to slanderous accusations." But THAT is precisely what you did to me when you claimned that I have "called for armed revolution". And THAT is why I asked if you had learned not to slap your wife around. Sucks to have someone lie about you in public, doesn't it?

Just to clarify, I will try to explain my position very clearly:

I think our current government sucks. (correction: I KNOW it sucks (and so do you if you're honest)). It needs to be reduced. However, I think we still have it way better in this country than we would if bullets started flying. However, I would be very surprised if some group somewhere didn't start shooting sometime in my lifetime if things continue to procede at their current pace because there are a helluva lot of folks that have just about "had it" with the Ken Collin's/ big government/ jack-booted thuggery. They are being abused and mistreated and someone's top is gonna blow at some point. This is NOT a call to arms anymore than saying "it's gonna rain" is a prayer for flood.. IT IS A PREDICTION, Chris, NOT A CALL.

When this happens it won't be me... WILL NOT BE ME, I'm too old and have no desire to do anything but live peacefully with my fellow man.

Now, STOP putting words in my mouth and I will try to afford you the same courtesy.

1

john bailey 7 months, 3 weeks ago

interesting thread we have here. the only revolution is gonna happen at the ballot box. so anyway , did anyone from the Pilot come up with why Steve Mendell is gone ? we truly do not have censorship here do we ?

0

Chris Hadlock 7 months, 3 weeks ago

In your own words Mark:

"Just because your hands were not on the shotgun does not mean you had no culpability in the use of force."

0

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

If I remember correctly, the context of that particular comment was that if someone, as the boss, gives orders for their employees to murder someone or to abuse someone, then that person is guilty too, even if their hands didn't touch the gun.

Maybe it had to do with the White House using the IRS to squelch dissent, but I'm sure that sort of tyranny is ok with you; it's MY dissent that rubs you wrong.

Funny, leftists used to be the dissenters, till they took over the gubbamint. Now, instead of dissent they excuse and condone.

1

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I'm curious about something, Chris,

I indeed said: "The fact is that armed revolution DID make it a better nation. Without question... That is, in fact, the story of this nation. Armed opposition to tyranny has often improved mankind's lot in life. Conversely. it is actually the very aquiescensce and appeasement which you advocate that has rarely improved man's lot in life; and has often led to enslavement, fammine, tyrany, and genocide."

My question for you is: Do you understand this statement to be true or false? Do you believe that armed revolution made America a better nation that it was under King George? Do you believe that armed revolution was NOT called for in 1776? Do you believe there is EVER a situation where armed revolution might be called for again?

?These are not "trick questions" and I'm really not trying to pick any more fight. I simply want to understand you view here.

0

Chris Hadlock 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Yes Mark. In the course of history there are many examples where armed revolution made the situation better. It is pretty tough to be American and believe that 1776 was not justified. The difference is that in 1776 the citizens had no recourse over decisions made by a King across an ocean. There is a large difference when compared to the decisions made by your elected officials.

Will revolution ever be justified again, Yes, I am absolutely sure there are nations on the Earth that will find this necessary. I hope to whatever power you respect that the USA is never one of them.

The true heart of the matter is modern America. No matter how you try to argue that Barack Obama is the most lawless President in history, that is just simply not true. He was elected with solid majorities and has acted much like Presidents before him. In addition, whether you like their decisions or not, your opinion is represented at all levels of Federal, State and Local Government and you have the ability to make your displeasure known far and loud. Conditions in our modern society are nothing like what would require armed insurrection no matter how much inflammatory language that is used to describe them.

I agree that there are many, MANY problems in our current political environment. I also strongly believe that those same problems can best be solved by discussion, discourse and compromise. Furthermore, the extreme language and constant comparisons to the worst violations of humanity are out of place. The harsh language and rhetoric does nothing to create the climate of discussion that is needed.

Do I see reasons for armed insurrection in the future? yes, I can see situations where that would be justified and mentioned a few above. A POTUS declaring emergency powers to extend his/her term. A declaration of national marshal law might get us there. A state governor using the Guard to attack or control resources in another state. Attempts to forcibly disarm all Americans. Disagreements about policy like the ACA do not rise to this level.

In most cases, a civil disobedience kind of reaction or protest is more appropriate. That is the beauty of our democratic system in that if enough people agree with you the swell of public opinion eventually rules.. The process is loud, ugly and full of warts, but so far it does in fact act to thwart the worst abuses that corrupt officials would force upon the citizens.

In closing, it would be nice to read an apology for your out of bounds baseless comment from last night. Care to retract those words that had absolutely no basis in reality or are you just going to pretend that you never crossed that line?

0

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Thank you Chris. I believe you have been honest in these answers.

As you wish, I gladly and earnestly retract my words from last night concerning your conduct towards your wife. In truth, I'm sure you treat her with all the respect she deserves.

I will, however, stop just short of an outright apology, as I believe your putting me in bed with Bundy and the hood wearers was equally uncalled for.

I am NOT a hood wearer. I grew up in the South and have seen it all. I told many of my friends 2 weeks ago that Bundy was wrong, and I caught a lot of shit from them because my position was'nt knee-jerk support of anyone hating the government. I don't "knee-jerk" hate anyone... EVER. I have reasoned and legitimate opinions that often cross party lines. I'm interested in facts, then decisions. NOT the other way around.

I suppose much of our differences can be attributed to where each of us believes our nation is on the scale of tyranny vs freedom.

You probably just have a higher threshold of pain/tyranny than I and my ilk.

As you suggest, probably our views will align more perfectly as we watch our nation digress once again toward that unspeakable eventuality.

0

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Well folks, here's the consequences of not allowing oil pipelines:

From the AP Thursday. May 1, 2014... LYNCHBURG, Virginia -- Several train cars carrying crude oil derailed and caught fire Wednesday along the James River in Virginia, with three black tankers ending up in the water and leaking some oil. It is the most recent crash involving oil trains that has safety experts pushing for better oversight. Nearby buildings were evacuated for a time, but officials said there were no injuries and the city on its website and Twitter said firefighters on the scene made the decision to let the fire burn out. Three or four of the tankers were breached on the train that railroad company CSX said was on its way from Chicago to unspecified destination. Most of the cars were knocked off the tracks. Photos and videos posted online showed large flames and thick, black smoke right after the crash. But in later photos it seemed the fire was mostly out.

Ken Collins and the "consequence deniers" are on the wrong side of the KXL issue.

0

Dan Shores 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Maybe Mendell finally succumbed to his paranoid delusional madness and went underground. And it shouldn't be that hard to understand that free speech does not extend to private enterprises such as "The Pilot." They can sensor anything they like, anytime they like, this has nothing to do with the constitution.

0

Pat West 7 months, 3 weeks ago

You can't simply remove all your posts because you want them gone. It's stated on the rules page that all comments are the property of the Pilot, and it is their judgement as to what stays, even after you are gone.

0

john bailey 7 months, 3 weeks ago

so then its only logical that the Pilot banned Steve...if that is the truth his last few posts were nothing to be banned over, I smell a rat...........~;0)

0

rhys jones 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Unfortunately we'll probably never know, as the Pilot obviously owes us no explanations. This gets curiouser and curiouser. It couldn't be a matter of volume; many challenge that, sometimes this troll himself. Offensive content can't be it; Steve was mostly respectful of others, even me when I was talking out my @$$ -- he even apologized to somebody, when he realized he had lost that point. If he was guilty of anything, it was over-documentation -- click one of his links, it'd jump you back to an earlier comment in the same discussion, as if we'd forgotten.

Remember just before they removed anonymous privileges? Some contributors responded with blatant vulgarity, really disgusting, making this conspiracy theorist suspect a shill -- yet the Pilot left it up for days, possibly to prove their point about how those privileges can be abused.

Yeah, one wonders whose toes you might step on...

0

john bailey 7 months, 3 weeks ago

too early , Dan , I know . its all good, have some more coffee.....

0

Dan Shores 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Thanks John, I'll take your advice. Chris, thanks for doing such a great job! I totally agree with all of your points and in particular you didn't let the extremist pull you down into the gutter and you stayed above it all. Nor did you give in to their unwarranted personal assault and comments about your family which should be off limits! A favorite tactic of those who have no logical or factual argument to make. Well done my friend.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Dan S. "A favorite tactic of those who have no logical or factual argument to make." That's not a very nice thing to say about the Left. (-; And yea, it looks like they fixed the side bar.

1

rhys jones 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I kinda miss ol' Steve. As somebody famous once said, (forgot who; maybe the Navajos) you are measured by your enemies, (or something like that) and Steve did offer up a good squawk, if circular and self-serving; at least he was well-documented, and I do credit him with considerable computer knowledge.

Making me wonder about his sudden and complete disappearance: Was that a matter of his choice? I doubt it. Did a particular comment cause his ouster? I saw nothing from him any worse than the barbs we see thrown back and forth daily. There was that accusation of conflict of interest in a particular article -- I didn't check that closely at the time, but it seems a little late for retribution for that now.

Was it a matter of sheer volume? Maybe the moderator needed a break. He wasn't the first long-winded contributor in here, nor will he be the last, not if I and Scott W have anything to say about it. Several of us are curious, Pilot, any roundabout explanation would be appreciated.

I'll watch what I say in the future, as if I'm not already; I'd sure hate to get squelched.

If you're still bubbling over, Steve, here's a tip: Get a gmail as Sylvester Slick, register as that, tell us you just fled California, and pick up where you left off. Nobody will ever guess.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Would be interesting to know if somebody filed a complaint against Steve.

0

rhys jones 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Maybe the bleeding hearts and do-gooders got together and had him snuffed. Wouldn't rule out the NSA or the Fed either; their arms are long, with tentacles that really suck.

0

Chris Hadlock 7 months, 3 weeks ago

From the Pilot account agreement: "If you delete your User-Generated Content, you understand that it may still exist in backup copies."

I believe that if you delete your online account, one of the options is to automatically delete anything you have ever posted. If true someone has to try it first :) Any volunteers?

The other possibility is that the Pilot determined that Steve Mendell online was NOT who he said he was. That would also cause the removal of all posts. If this is the case The Pilot will never say anything to anyone.

0

Chris Hadlock 7 months, 3 weeks ago

"As a member or supporter of the Coffee Party, I pledge to conduct myself in a way that is civil, honest, and respectful toward people with whom I disagree. I value people from different cultures, I value people with different ideas, and I value and cherish the democratic process."

IMO we should all strive toward this ideal in our forum posts. Yes, I know some of you have a very bad opinion about the Coffee Party and I am not trying to change or influence that.

What I am saying is that Our Government, the Pilot forum and our personal lives would all work better if each and every one of us would strive towards this ideal. As my Sunday School teacher used to tell us, God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason. Please use them that way.

Who will join me in this effort?

0

Pat West 7 months, 3 weeks ago

For the record, I was joking when I said the Fed's would come take SteveM away for his King Barack comments.

0

Ken Mauldin 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I contacted the Editor and was informed that Steve's account was suspended based on complaints received regarding his posts.

I respect that I received a quick and professional response to my inquiry and want to make clear that I've never noticed any bias in any reporting from the Steamboat Pilot writers in reporting the news. However, I believe they have granted those offended by Steve's posts a 'heckler's veto' with the practical effect of silencing a voice they disagree with.

Without question, this is their forum and they can manage it any way they choose.

I asked the Editor to reconsider Steve's participation and I hope each of you will do the same. The Editor may be reached at editor@SteamBoatToday.com.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Hmmm. It looks like a case of Free speech for me but not for thee?

0

Chris Hadlock 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Wasn't me, I agree with Ken here, and sent the following message to the editor.

"Not sure why you allow certain posters to get away with flagrant violations of your forum policies but have completely removed Steve Mendell?

What was so compelling that he had to be completely removed instead of censored like everyone else?
You frequently remove comments that are unacceptable and while I disagree profusely with what Mr. Mendell had to say, I support his right to say what he believes within the bounds of civility."

0

rhys jones 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Thanks for the suggestion, Ken, I used that to lobby for Steve's return too.

I argued that EVERYBODY loves skewering him, and it's just so much fun!!

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Thanks Ken. I have used your suggestion as well and sent an email. Sure would be interesting as to whom utilized the "hecklers veto" and what caused them to use it.

0

john bailey 7 months, 3 weeks ago

thanks also Ken ...email sent , it does go to Lisa , right ? , ..... , what cowards you are to complain like that . at least step up and show yourselves....hum , care to take a guess who on this board would do such a thing ? and to think they took away the anonymity and xit like this happens..... cowards...

0

mark hartless 7 months, 3 weeks ago

It's their ink, folks.

Although taking away the anonimity was a mistake and has certainly manifested itself as such in my view.

0

Pat West 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I disagree, the anonymous forum was filled with personal attacks, and unsupported lies. At least now you know who is saying what and can hold people accountable for their posts.

I would love to hear why you think this was a mistake.

0

mark hartless 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I just think a lot of people with a lot of different perspectives went away.

Their insight was worth something.

0

Pat West 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I think a lot of people do not participate at all because of the harsh, competitive debate tactics that you and others use to control content on this forum. I wonder what this forum would be like if contributors who posts multiple times on every story, didn't, and let new voices be aired.

This is not a personal blog, but some treat it as such. But as it is the Pilot's forum.

1

mark hartless 7 months, 2 weeks ago

You say "you and others... control this forum. Yet you acknowledge that "...it is the Pilot's forum."

No matter how many comments some may make, there is still ALWAYS room for anyone and everyone else to post. Despite how you wish to characterise it, this is NOT a screaming match where people verbally interrupt and talk over one another.

Every single comment from every single poster gets equal and virtually unlimited space.

When you say "... some folks do not participate because of the harsh, competitive debate tactics...", then wasn't that what disallowing anonimity was going to solve? You acknowledge now that it hasn't?

Could it also be that some folks know that they simply do not have reason and logic on their side? Any argument sounds valid, even iron-clad when rendered in the limited company of like-minded individuals. To sharpen steel or harden it into something useable, sparks must fly.

1

Chris Hadlock 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Actually, I agree with Mark here. (I know, shock and awe)

The anonymous boards allowed for much more diversity in opinions, and since the change, these forums have remained just as polarized and dominated by outspoken individuals. At the same time, the personal attacks, BS and just plain mean posts continue.

As I said then, anonymous users should be limited to 1 post per day while users willing to share their identity could post more often. This policy would curb the worst of the abuse while still allowing the diversity in opinion to be expressed by those that are unwilling to share their personal information.

Come on Pilot, how about a response?? Will you at least admit that your policy has decimated the content and use of these forum boards. I see at least a 50-75% drop in comments. How is that a good thing for a public forum.

1

Pat West 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I would love to see everyone limited to one post on a story per day. I think that too few voices post far too often for new voices to participate.

I think that the Pilot dosn't enforce its own standards equally and is still don't understand why SteveM was banned while others that break the guidelines for content are left alone. Unless I missed something SteveM posted that drew the ire of the Pilot.

I too would love to hear from the Pilot about their view on the behavior on this forum. I would suppose from their lack of involvement, they are fine with the current system.

0

john bailey 7 months, 2 weeks ago

excellent point ,Chris . I never saw the need for being anonymous but you are correct the number of posters sure have gone down. everyone has a voice , use it....its not like a vote where you use it on only certain occasions , you can use you voice all the time......whats wrong with that ?

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.