Chuck McConnell: Representation matters

Advertisement

The 2013 Colorado Assembly session was anything but positive for the residents of Northwest Colorado. We have a single-party government in our state with Democrats controlling the House, Senate and the Governor’s office. The agenda of the Legislature did not consider rural Colorado nor our House District 26, which includes Routt and Eagle counties. Sadly, the governor has not used his office to stand up for jobs in our area.

The two destructive anti-gun laws passed by the Colorado Assembly in 2013, HB 1224 and HB 1229, did not reflect the views or the values of stakeholders in House District 26 or the Western Slope. Out-of-state hunters are seriously considering a boycott of Colorado for next year’s hunting season because of the Legislature’s new anti-gun attitude. This hurts businesses large and small that employ our residents.

Our citizens are not safer because of the new laws and are in fact less safe; there is much credible research to support this. Colorado lost precious jobs because of these ill-conceived laws as evidenced by the January announcement of the departure of gun part manufacturer Magpul and their 200 employees. Worst yet the laws were hastily crafted and poorly written.

I attended a public meeting in Craig last November where Governor Hickenlooper spoke. I asked the governor to “stand up for coal” in his role as 2014 Chairman of the Western Governors Association. Coal is vitally important to our families in Routt and Moffat counties. He would not commit to fight for us.

Senate Bill 13 252 is another example of a new law that is costly to Coloradans. This bill will raise the electric bills of thousands of rural Coloradans including some as close as Rio Blanco County. This increased cost to family budgets comes at a time when the economy has not fully recovered from the latest deep recession.

It makes common sense for rural Colorado representatives to stick together especially considering the need for mutual support when faced with urban pressure on our vital water rights.

Nearly all Democrats in the Legislature supported Amendment 66, which called for a new, near billion dollar tax increase disguised as a way to finance improvement of our schools. Voters across the state overwhelmingly rejected this proposal — a proposal that was supported by our state representative.

Our school systems also are seeing the effect of the unfunded mandates that accompany the Common Core Standards. Steamboat Springs school district is now looking for $672,000 in additional funding to achieve a testing mandate. Eagle County schools will need as much as $2 million to comply. The Common Core standards are costly and harmful to education. Our representative must stand up and fight for quality education and against these needless unfunded mandates.

The 2013 Colorado Assembly also passed significant changes to our voting laws with HB 13 1303. One part of this bill allowed for same-day registration for our elections. I do not think the majority of our citizens favor this because of concerns about fraudulent voting. The Secretary of State’s office is responsible for our elections. Input from his office was not considered in writing the bill just as input from Colorado’s law enforcement professionals, our sheriffs, was not considered when writing the new anti-gun laws.

The promise of bipartisan cooperation was not kept in 2013. We saw the danger of single-party government, and it was not good for us. Our representation in the Colorado Assembly followed Front Range party-line voting including support of bills that raised our taxes and fees. The values of voters in Northwest Colorado were not represented.

The bottom line is not how many committees a representative serves on, it only matters how that representative votes. We need representation that will fight for us.

Chuck McConnell

Steamboat Springs

Comments

Joe Meglen 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Chuck,

Thanks for your informed voice of reason. Let’s hope voters in House District 26 and Colorado awaken before we have passed the Rubicon.

1

Dan Shores 10 months, 3 weeks ago

There is a reason that Democrats control the House, Senate and Governor's office. It's called the will of the people of the state of Colorado. The people responded to senseless gun violence by asking for increased background checks and limited magazine size. These are reasonible changes to the law should have no impact on hunting. I thought hunters took pride in their skill, accuracy and tracking ability. Assault riffles with large capacity magazines were designed to kill as many humans as quickly and easily as possile. That's why they exist! I don't see the relavence that these weapons have for hunting animals. And there you go again with the voter fraud argument. Chuck, you know, I know and everyone else knows that there is not now or has there ever been an issue with voter fraud. Voting is a constitutional right and should be made easier to do, not more difficult. You also know or should know that efforts to restrict voting are an effort to limit the ability of minorites, the elderly and the poor to vote. Your party has admitted to this tactic publicly. New voter restrictions along with redistricting are your parties attempt to influence the outcome of elections because the American people are not buying your story. If you want more representation you are going to have to stop trying to fool people with phony arguments and coming up with real sensible solutions to problems that the American people will support.

1

Chuck McConnell 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Dan, with respect, I offer the following on your points:

No one wants senseless gun violence. Unfortunately, the bills passed in 2013 will not stop or reduce gun violence. The Sandy Hook school shooter stole the gun he used from a registered gun owner. Criminals and folks with serious mental issues who break the law pay no attention to the new laws. In fact only law abiding citizens are affected. The issue with hunters is very real. We have hunters from across the country who take their second amendment rights seriously and see Colorado as unfriendly to those rights. They have a choice to go to other states to hunt. My friends who own a motel in NW Colorado have been told by hunters who come here regularly they are now going elsewhere. This is costly to our economy and jobs.

Voting is absolutely an American right and one that must be taken seriously. There is voter fraud in our state every year. Granted the numbers are not large right now but the new laws (13 1303 and 14 1164) make fraud easier. Legitimate voters do not want their vote negated by a fraudulent vote. Neither I nor anyone in my party that I know here in HD 26 want to restrict any qualified voter's right to vote. Same day voter registration with minimal verification does not open voting up to more minorities, poor or elderly. Voting is certainly important enough that a person can make the small effort required prior to the new same day laws. Colorado voter turnout was among the top three states in the nation prior to the new laws.

2

mark hartless 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Dan,

Linking hunting with the second ammendment and then arguing that one does not need an assault rifle to hunt is akin to linking speaking with the first ammendment and then arguing that one does not need a microphone, typerwiter, or computer keyboard to use their first ammendment rights.

In fact it is an even stupider argument than that when one considers the fact that you don't "need" ANY type of gun to hunt. Indians and cavemen hunted long before guns.

Would the first ammendment allow banning typewriters and computers (the internet perhaps) because "you don't need a computer to speak"???

After all, speech was around long before typewriters and computers.

I have said it many times and I will continue to make this point: It is, in my opinion, foolhardy to argue to rid society of things based on whether or not society "needs" those things. In fact, such naivety plays right into the hands of would-be tyrants.

Do you ski, Dan? Snowmobile? Watch TV? Sports? Eat pizza or hamburgers once in a while?? Well, you don't "need" to have or do any of those things. Is the fact that you don't need them enough reason for others to deny you those enjoyments?

0

Doug Starkey 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Lots of words here, that's for sure. More rhetoric, that's for sure.

"Out-of-state hunters are seriously considering a boycott of Colorado for next year’s hunting season because of the Legislature’s new anti-gun attitude." "Hunters", is that two people who hunt or all of them? I'm sure this claimed is based on some sort of survey of out of state hunters, right? Or maybe a conversation with somebody's cousin from Ohio?

"Our citizens are not safer because of the new laws and are in fact less safe; there is much credible research to support this." Love to see the "credible research" supporting this statement.

Meandering pablum, par for the course from Chuck. Quick last note to Chuck. We did have an election in 2012. We elected people to represent us (aka Representation). They are doing as the majority expected when they voted. If we disagree, there's always another election coming up. Here's hoping Chuck runs again.

0

john bailey 10 months, 3 weeks ago

a 2012 election thats running this country right into the ground, remember you get the gubbmint you elect. nice job........

1

mark hartless 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Doug is right. Those representatives are indeed "doing as the majority expected...".

Just like a lynch-mob, a rape gang, or two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner. In each case a majority.

It is, however, not what the majority expects, but what it does NOT expect, that eventually bites them in the ass.

If there's any personal solace in watching my country slip into the abyss it'll be seeing that "majority" peeping through the same chain-link fence as those who begged them to consult history and temper their zeal for majority rule.

0

Fred Duckels 10 months, 3 weeks ago

The lefties always concentrate on, and depend on marginal issues for their game plan. It's not weather gay dogs eat more than straight dogs but how much money do we owe and how are we going to deal with it. Without dealing with this matter none of the rest is going to matter. We need meat and potatoes that is what has sustained us for thousands of years.

1

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 3 weeks ago

incomes for the middle class continue to drop, college students accumulate debt with below average job prospects (can only hire so many Starbucks baristas even at $10.10 minimum wage), technology continues to eliminate jobs, health care costs continue to rise, energy costs continue to rise (propane was $2.50 per gallon late December out here, just heard it is priced around $5.00. Spot shortage or long term trend?) it appears that disposable income is falling as is the ability to get credit. That it makes it tough for a consumer driven economy. If the consumer cuts back/looks for discounts it seems like price increase in consumer items will be difficult to push through. Falling into the abyss. not yet but it may be possible to see it from where we are

1

Dan Shores 10 months, 3 weeks ago

mark, analogies are always difficult and with all due respect I can't make any sense of yours. None of the items that you mentioned, microphones, typwritters, skis, hamburgers, etc. were designed and built specifically for the purpose of killing as many humans as one can as fast and easily as possible. While I am in no way suggesting that guns should be banned, I think we all agree that the general public does not need to possess certain weapons. Shoulder fired missles, gernade launchers, etc. and I put assault rifles with large capacity magazines in that catagory. Any hunter who boycots Colorado because of background checks and magazine capacity is jsut being ridiculous and sort of biggoted in my opinion. And Chuck, please enough with the voter fraud already. You cannot be serious. Your party has a solution looking for a problem. Your party leaders have stated publicly that they are proposing new voting restrictions for the purpose of swaying elections. They aren't even pretending that they are actually worried about voter fraud. In my view we should be making it more difficult to purchase guns and easier to vote instead of the other way around.

0

Dan Shores 10 months, 3 weeks ago

John, what do you mean by running the country into the ground? Surely you're not referring to the economy. While things are certainly not ideal, they are much, much better than they were in '08 and they continue to get better. Have you checked in with the stock market lately? If it wasn't for republican obstructionism the economy and job picture would most certainly be even better.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Stock market is better! how many of the "middle class" are benefiting from that? the top 10% that own "assets" are laughing all the way to the bank. the rest - not so much

0

john bailey 10 months, 3 weeks ago

WTH , stock market ? Dan get a grip , wheres the jobs ?

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 3 weeks ago

John, that's my point. stock market helps very few people but some point to the stock market as proof that all is well. all is not well. middle class income falling, college grads have increasing debt and dwindling job prospects, health care costs up, energy care costs up

0

Joe Meglen 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Dan,

The 2nd Amendment does not give the right, but acknowledges the fact that free people have the inherent right to defend themselves, their friends and family from all threats, including the threat of a tyrannical government. The founders intended that the 2nd Amendment keep government in check. Government hates the Constitution because it limits government. Government is the opposite of freedom. Every new law, regulation, or ordinance is done at the direct expense of liberty. When politicians enact unconstitutional gun control laws they are attempting to overthrow the Constitution. Once you understand the basis of the 2nd Amendment, choosing to own a semiautomatic rifle with a large capacity magazine is reasonable and constitutional. In some countries it is considered a duty.

Regarding your position on the economy: The August 2008 financial collapse was the beginning of the end of the 100 year old fiat money Ponzi scheme called fractional banking. 2008 was the bankruptcy of the Western banking system that has only temporarily been salvaged through nearly incalculable money printing, at the direct expense of the people and the productive private sector. This has been the greatest transfer of wealth in World history. The problem in 2008 was that the debt service exceeded the entire World’s GDP’s ability to service the debt. The collapse was a problem of too much debt. You can’t solve a problem of too much debt by creating more debt, which is exactly what the bankers that control government have done. The ruling elite, and political class they own, saved themselves by plundering the people. The next collapse will make 2008 look mild by comparison. Chuck McConnell recognizes that jobs are precious. The fact that he opposes the job killing legislation passed by the politicians that currently control Colorado government demonstrates his clear understanding of the considerable challenges our state will be facing in the not-too-distant future. If Mr. McConnell decides to run for office this season, he is exactly the kind of citizen politician we will need during what are going to be the difficult times ahead.

0

mark hartless 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Dan,

You just skip right over my point; although I think you understand it quite well. The general public does not "need" hamburgers, ski's, or six-packs. Fools, and only fools, argue for the elimination of their own freedoms based on their "need" for those freedoms.

Of course guns come first; but when the guns are gone and society is still not a sperfect as the ruling class imagines it could be do you really think they will NOT come for your cheeseburger, ski's, electric-powered ski-lift, etc?? If you don't understand this there is little hope for you.

Doug, et al,

It's funny how people on the far left "poo-pooo" any suggestion of any possible consequences for bad decision-making with statements like "[oh well] ...there's always another election", even though history is replete with examples of nations and kingdoms and civilizations where elections were eliminated by those that were put in charge by democartic elections. For them there was NOT "another election". One needn't look further back than the late Hugo Chavez of Venezuela to see this.

Yet it is largely the same crowd that would tell us that, when it comes to the planet there might be no tomorrow whatsoever if we do not curtail our "footprint". History suggests that the planet keeps on turning but you folks want us to believe it will not. History suggests elections quickly come to an end but you want us to believe there is "always another election"...

0

john bailey 10 months, 3 weeks ago

to me , nothing is a better indicator of a healthy economy than USA construction and USA manufacturing you have these 2 sectors thriving , we all thrive. Stock market my patootie...... once again , WHERES THE JOBS ?

0

Dan Shores 10 months, 3 weeks ago

The stock market is and has always been an indicator of the health of the business community. Can you imagine how the right wing would be screaming at the President for his failed economic policies if the market was crashing. I remember when he was first elected and the market was still sputtering the analysits were saying that the market doesn't trust the president. Now that the market has more than doubled, it seems that it shoud mean that the market loves the President's economic policies. What about the "trickle down" theory? It's true that the stock market gains mostly benefit the wealthy and since by your reasoning they are the job creators, I would ask them, where are the jobs? In addition, the President has proposed jobs bills such as rebuilding our nation's infrastructure which would put people to work immediatley but these proposals are continually rejected by the republicans in congress. And sorry Mark, I really don't understand your point. I re-read your post and I still don't get it. I'm speaking about assault rifles with large capacity magazines. Unless you are paranoid and think that you actually need these weapons to defend yourself against the government, as if you could actually take on the most powerful military froce the world has ever known, you don't need to own them. Even still I have not and my party has not ever proposed taking away your guns, just making it more difficult to purchase them and increasing backgrounds checks. I have other ideas that I will not discuss at this time. Also thanks to all for the debate. I appreciate all the differing views even though I don't agree with some.

0

Kevin Nerney 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Dan, you are correct the market doesn't trust the gov't. Hence the reason it is down another 110 after having 4 out of 5 losing days. And yes we will need those guns because as Obama himself said the other night in his SOTU address "I will act with or without the consent of Congress". NOOOOO!! that is not how the system was designed to work. How are all the pundits in the media not jumping on this phrase.

1

mark hartless 10 months, 3 weeks ago

The market does indeed love the policy. But it is not so much the broader economic policy that the market loves; rather it is the fact that the Federal Reserve continues to pump billions of dollars/month into the market.

One needn't look any farther than the local hospital to know that even almost dead patients can be sustained and can even be made to "feel good" if you pump enough morphine or heroine into their veins, but that hardly makes them "well". As with medicine, reckless use of "prop-up" economic policies have a way of sending the chickens back home at the most undeserable times.

Rather than asking the business community "where are the jobs?" Dan might better ask himself: "If the economic/business atmosphere was more friendly would those businesses tend to be hiring/expanding?" Or "If prospects were better for business expansion than for just holding cash why would they continue holding cash"??

No one in their right mind pours concrete for a new production facility when the short-term and medium-term regulatory environment changes like the wind. (much less medium-long term)

One of the strongest headwinds against this nations economy is the uncertainty which seems now to be the only real certainty. More than the politicians in Mordor on the Potomac and in Denver, I blame the American electorate.

They are ignorant of sound economics. They do not know or care about how inflation robs them.

They are opposed to sound economic discipline; paying lipservice to their concern for posterity while skipping out on the tab over and over and over again and leaving them with insurmountable debt.

They are immature and impatient. They use elections to twist the helm on the "ship of state" from one extreme to the other but to impatient to give either policy sufficient time to take rootm much less to thrive.

They are irresponsibly child-like in their reliance on centra-planning type economic policies; ceeding to government authority rightly vested in them as individuals and as communities. They accept mandates from afar on how much water their toilet can use, what their car's MPG should be, whether their truck can idle in their own driveway and ponder allowing these would-be Napoleans even to dictate what type of grocery bag they may use. They defer to government their rights to bargain with one-another in matters of mortgage-loans, real estate contracts, even to agree among two consenting parties on matters of things as basic as their daily wage.

And then people wonder why the few sane business leaders don't want to enter that economic "funhouse" when they can sit off-shore or set up shop in less insane environs... idiots.

1

john bailey 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Dan , i am in no way shape or form better off than 2008. a lot of fellow workers are not better off than 2008 . the fact that many lost their homes and tools of their trade or had to relocate else where is a sure indication of not being better off. if the stock market is a trickle down , where are the abundant jobs in this area? yesterdays Doonesbury comic was perfect for these times.......read it.

0

Dan Shores 10 months, 2 weeks ago

John, I'm not sure if your memory is serving you correctly. I too am a trade person, carpenter, contractor and my business almost died out completly in 2009 and 2010. The last 2 years have been outstanding and as good as I have ever had. You also made my point again for me that the "trickle down" theory is a myth. If the "trickle down" theory was true, then all of the incredible gains in the stock market in the last 5 years should have translated into jobs since the wealthy are supposedly to be the job creators. It is true that some of the gains in the market can be attributed to the Fed buying bonds but that is still an administration policy. If the President was running the country into the ground, how do you explain this fact? The truth is that the reason big corporations are holding onto cash is not because they are worried about the ACA or their taxes, it is because they are worried that they can't sell their product if they ramp up production. Any business person in the world will tell you that if there is money to be made, if there is a product that they can produce and sell, or a service that they can provide, they're gonig to do it no matter how much tax they have to pay or how much insurance liability they might incur. They could care less, if there is profit to be made they're going to make it. That's what they do and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. I know it is easy to make broad generalizations with statements like, "the President is runing the country into the ground", and people who are uninformed will hear it and repeat it, maybe because they just don't like the President and especially an African American President, or maybe they are just negative and cynical. But I challenge you to state specific examples of what leads you to belive that the President is running the country into the ground. If you look at the housing market, the construction industry, the auto industry, the banking industry, the stock market, the job market, all are on the rise and steadily improving. And the fact that we are out of Iraq and about to be out of Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden is dead, dosen't sound like running the country into the ground to me.

0

john bailey 10 months, 2 weeks ago

then you are one of the lucky ones , I unfortunately am not, good for you, it basically comes down to the truth good or bad tell the truth. nothing like being hit the bank account to see the struggles of the every day man. and pray tell where are you getting the work. from 2nd home owners ? locals , foreign investors, please do tell. great debate , keep it going. i'll defer your question to the other posters they speak with little more detail then I can. i'm more of a bull in a china shop. LOL

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Mr. Shores, Why do you bring race into the equation. My goodness. Of course there may be people who don't like Obama because he is bi-racial. There may have been people who didn't like Romney because he is a Mormon or McCain because he is white. Why can't the left drop that talking point?

Middle class income are stagnant at best. The Decline of Colorado’s Middle Class By David Madland and Keith Miller | December 12, 2013 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2013/12/12/81081/the-decline-of-colorados-middle-class/

College debt is on the rise. Class of 2013 grads average $35,200 in total debt By Blake Ellis @blakeellis3 May 17, 2013: 12:39 PM ET http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/17/pf/college/student-debt/index.html

Why Companies Aren't Hiring Now By Garrett Baldwin, Economist, Money Morning · July 23, 2013 http://moneymorning.com/2013/07/23/why-companies-arent-hiring-now/

Housing prices going up. Morgan Stanley predicts buy-to-rent boom July 31, 2013 5:56PM http://www.housingwire.com/articles/25877-morgan-stanley-predicts-buy-to-rent-boom

the Feds zero interest rate policy is giving the 1% the ability to borrow money at very low interest rates and buy "assets" - stocks, real estate. This is something not available to the "middle class". Margin borrowing on the NYSE is at or near the levels we saw before the collapse in 2009. The Feds zero interest rate policy is hurting the "middle class" as what ever savings they have are receiving virtually no interest. You can choose to blame whomever you wish for the misfortunes of the middle class or you may choose to believe all is well. So said Herbert Stein. "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop,"

0

john bailey 10 months, 2 weeks ago

back to the original question posed to me, I am not better off than in 2008 09 10 11 12 13 , that's the bottom line. and the #1 goal is to pay my bills , myself , no gubbmint help. and keep what I busted my back side to build along with my loving wife. we built our house we did not buy , with that I am the richest man in the world... and I am sorry Dan I did not remember your trade, we are all the better for it with our skilled tradesman such as you and me.......

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Mr. Shores, As you broached the subject of race I thought you might find this piece interesting. While you will get no argument from me that racism exists in my opinion it tends to get over blown. I hope the example I have provided will high light that. I have copied the first paragraph and then attached the link to the rest of the article. RACISM EVERYWHERE? Even as actual racism declines, news stories about purported racism continue to multiply. Let’s take two examples from the last 24 hours. In Slate, Tracy Thompson tells us: “Snow didn’t paralyze Atlanta. Racism did.” Seriously: Thompson blames the snowstorm and consequent snarling of traffic in Atlanta on “racism.” How can that be? Thompson explains that on account of racism, regional government in the Atlanta area is fragmented: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/02/racism-everywhere-2.php

0

Dan Shores 10 months, 2 weeks ago

The reason I mentioned race is because I believe that it is a question that begs to be asked and begs to be answered. Let me be clear that I am not in any way accusing anyone here of being a racist. What I am saying is that in all my years on this planet I have never seen a President be subject to the kind of disrespect and pure hatred that this President has endured. Can anyone remember a President being questioned about his birth certificate, asked to present his college transcripts, people claiming that he could have only gotten into college because of affirmative action, being heckled by a member of congress and called a liar during a Presidential address to congress. Can anyone remember the leader of the other party decalring that the singular goal of his party is to insure that the newly elected president be a one term president. This is the priorty, not working together for the betterment of the country, not admitting defeat and vowing to work together in a bypartisan way to address the issues before us. Can anyone remember a President being continually accused of trying to destroy our country and trampeling on our constitutional rights when there is absolutely no evidence to support these claims. As a matter of fact the evidence suggests the exact opposite. The Tea Party crying out that they "want their country back". Back from what? A political party trying to suppress the vote and making it more difficult for minorities amoung others, to vote. And of course the continual unfounded and hatefull criticism by the other side to the point of some in congress refusing to even be in the same room as the President. So ask yourself the question, if race isn't behind the unprecedented level of vitriol, hatred and disrespect being shown this president, then how do you explain it?

0

john bailey 10 months, 2 weeks ago

lets put it away for today fellas, LETS GO BRONCOS.....(except we've never had this questionable of a xit I can't even say it, HERE WE GO BRONCOS HERE WE GO.....

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Mr. Shores, So it's racism if Pres. Obama is mocked, ridiculed chastised, criticized like every past president from George Washington on. It comes with the office. Again I will concede that there are racists. There are those who hate others because of their color, their religion, there political beliefs etc., but in general it is my opinion that most of the criticisms of the current president have to do with policy. I do not condone any criticism of any one due to race and I am not using past bad behavior to condone current bad behavior. As an aside I am sure you recall the pictures and cartoons of Bush as a monkey, a nazi, Hitler, a stupid dunce. Had he not been president he most likely would never have been insulted in that manner. One question for you, in all your years on the planet have you ever seen a newly elected president from a different party blame the past administration for all the woes to deal with for so long after the new president took office. John, sorry about your Broncos. That Seattle defense was awfully good and P. Manning was off his game.

0

john bailey 10 months, 2 weeks ago

interesting report by the CBO on the ACA..... ha. whaddya got Dan S ? Dan K. we got freekin crushed. still feelin the funk...

0

Dan Shores 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Dan I didn't say that the incredible and unprecidented level of disrespect shown this president was due to racism. If it isn't racism then what is it? Maybe it is policy, then why not articulate the reason for the policy objection? Maybe it is just the evolution of our society and the way people treat each other these days. What is not in dipute or subject to speculation is the unprecidented level of disrespect shown to this President. Yes all Presidents that I can remember have been subject to ridicule but none, as I pointed out, have been asked to present their birth certificate or asked to present their college transcripts or heckled and called a liar by a republican member of congress during a Presidential address to both houses, or had a member of the opposition party walk out of the room during the SOTU because he couldn't stand to listen anymore, or a republican member of congress refusing to meet with the President because he couldn't stand to be in the same room, or called a muslim, communist, socialist, fascist, Kenyan anti-colonialist socialist. What does any of this have to do with policy. If you dismiss these facts or deny that the level of disrespect shown this President is unprecidented, then you are exibiting the typical right wing behavior of just denying the facts and pretending that they don't exist. This is precisly why the American people have rejected right wing ideology. The American people are smarter than that, they want to be told the truth, they don't want to be lied to, they want to hear the facts as they are so that they can make an informed decision. With regard to the President blaming the Bush administration for the state of the economy that he inherited, the President was being accussed of creating the mess that he inherited. The President didn't create the mess, the Bush administration did. Again this is historical fact which you can choose to accept or deny. The Bush administration ran up trillions in debt due to the unfunded an imoral wars of choice while at the same time lowering taxes, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month! The auto industry was on the verge of collapse, the banking industry was on the verge of collapse, the housing market was on the verge of collapse and millions of Americans were losing their homes. How could this be the fault of a President who wasn't even in office yet? In the last 5 years the President has turned all of this around yet his policies are still criticized with blanket statements like he is "running the country into the ground" or "we want our country back". Are you saying that he didn't turn the economy around fast enough? Again no facts are presented, just broad general criticism. The American people gave the republican party their chance for 8 years and they saw and experienced the results. They don't have to touch the hot stove again to realize that they will get burned again if they do.

0

john bailey 10 months, 2 weeks ago

both sides lie. this is news? yet we were told this will be the most transparent admin. ever. still waiting on that one. leadership failure plain and simple. you can write a book, but this is what I see. he lied from the get go. must be all those promises sounding good before getting elected , once that was done , the realization of the job hit like a brick xithouse. FAILURE wanta but a solar panel? and again you fight the battle on their ground not ours. that should never change and if it should , boy o boy we haven't seen nothing yet. opps I dropped the china. xit...~;0)

0

Dan Shores 10 months, 2 weeks ago

John, you're making my point again for me so thanks. Broad generalizations with no facts or substance. You're the man. Sorry about the Broncos. It was hard to watch. I just don't think they were ready for the level of defense that they encountered. Manning had no time to throw the ball and every time there was a completion there were Seahawks right there to make the tackle. Oh well, there is always next year.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Dan S. Please tell me your rant was you being funny.

0

john bailey 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Dan S, I believe I told you i'm not the one for specifics, I am bull in a china shop. I can't type that much. I have my views and they are mine alone , but go ahead the floor is always yours. i'll jump in a sting ya when I can. bbzzzz . and yes there is always next year, this coming from a Cub fan.......HAHA this Admin , just plain dropped the ball. glad to help ya out .

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Hey John, Don't sell yourself short. I thought your question to Dan S about the CBO report on the ACA was quite specific. PS: my Vikings have been to 4 Super Bowls and they are still waiting to schedule a victory parade in downtown Minneapolis.

0

john bailey 10 months, 2 weeks ago

interesting hearing today on Capital Hill with the IRS BS. I kinda like this Gowdy fella, has a lot of fire in his belly. but alas , nobody is responsible, just like this Admin. humm . see a pattern here?

0

Dan Shores 10 months, 2 weeks ago

I didn't respond to the CBO report because I hadn't had time to look at the analysis. Now that I have, I see that it contains very positive news for the job picture going forward and because it is good news the right wing is desperately trying to put a negative spin on the report which is quite typical. Again this is usually the case and makes my point over and over again with regard to lying and distortion of the facts by the right wing. But you can't fool the American people all the time and that's why we have a democratic president and getting back finally to Chuck's article, a democratic house, senate and governor's office in the state of Colorado.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Hey Dan S. here is more "lying and distortion of the facts".

Why Short-Term Effects Will Be Smaller Than Longer-Term Effects CBO estimates that the reduction in the use of labor that is attributable to the ACA will be smaller between 2014 and 2016 than it will be between 2017 and 2024. That difference is a result of three factors in particular—two that reflect smaller negative effects on the supply of labor and one that reflects a more positive effect on the demand for labor:  The number of people who will receive exchange subsidies—and who thus will face an implicit tax from the phaseout of those subsidies that discourages them from working—will be smaller initially than it will be in later years. The number of enrollees (workers and their dependents) purchasing their own coverage through the exchanges is projected to rise from about 6 million in 2014 to about 25 million in 2017 and later years, and most of those enrollees will receive subsidies. Although the number of people who will be eligible for exchange subsidies is similar from year to year, workers who are eligible but do not enroll may either be unaware of their eligibility or be unaffected by it and thus are unlikely to change their supply of labor in response to the availability of those subsidies.  CBO anticipates that the unemployment rate will remain high for the next few years. If changes in incentives lead some workers to reduce the amount of hours they want to work or to leave the labor force altogether, many unemployed workers will be available to take those jobs—so the effect on overall employment of reductions in labor supply will be greatly dampened.  The expanded federal subsidies for health insurance will stimulate demand for goods and services, and that effect will mostly occur over the next few years. That increase in demand will induce some employers to hire more workers or to increase their employees’ hours during that period. CBO anticipates that output will return nearly to its maximum sustainable level in 2017 (see Chapter 2). Once that occurs, the net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply because of the ACA will be fully reflected in a decline in total employment and hours worked relative to what would otherwise occur.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Effects of the Employer Penalty on the Demand for Labor

Beginning in 2015, employers of 50 or more full-time equivalent workers that do not offer health insurance (or that offer health insurance that does not meet certain criteria) will generally pay a penalty. That penalty will initially reduce employers’ demand for labor and thereby tend to lower employment. Over time, CBO expects, the penalty will be borne primarily by workers in the form of reduced wages or other compensation, at which point the penalty will have little effect on labor demand but will reduce labor supply and will lower employment slightly through that channel. Businesses face two constraints, however, in seeking to shift the costs of the penalty to workers. First, there is considerable evidence that employers refrain from cutting their employees’ wages, even when unemployment is high (a phenomenon sometimes referred to as sticky wages).19 For that reason, some employers might leave wages unchanged and instead employ a smaller workforce. That effect will probably dissipate entirely over several years for most workers because companies that face the penalty can restrain wage growth until workers have absorbed the cost of the penalty—thus gradually eliminating the negative effect on labor demand that comes from sticky wages. A second and more durable constraint is that businesses generally cannot reduce workers’ wages below the statutory minimum wage.20 As a result, some employers will respond to the penalty by hiring fewer people at or just above the minimum wage—an effect that would be similar to the impact of raising the minimum wage for those companies’ employees. Over time, as worker productivity rises and inflation erodes the value of the minimum wage, that effect is projected to decline because wages for fewer jobs will be constrained by the minimum wage. The effect will not disappear completely over the next 10 years, however, because some wages are still projected to be constrained (that is, wages for some jobs will be at or just above the minimum wage). Businesses also may respond to the employer penalty by seeking to reduce or limit their full-time staffing and to hire more part-time employees. Those responses might occur because the employer penalty will apply only to businesses with 50 or more full-time-equivalent employees, and employers will be charged only for each full-time employee (not counting the first 30 employees). People are generally considered full time under the ACA if they work 30 hours or more per week, on average, so employers have an incentive, for example, to shift from hiring a single 40-hour, full-time employee to hiring two, 20-hour part-time employees to avoid bearing the costs of the penalty.

0

john bailey 10 months, 2 weeks ago

apparently you can fool the American people all the time , like for the last 6 years. no corruption not a smidgeon , so says the Emperor.......~;0) beach blanket bingo...2 questions Dan S. , whats your line of work and what year were you born ? if I may ask , of course.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Dan S. Oh and by the way I couldn't give a rat's hind end about which party is in power. (regards your rant about the Dems in charge of CO). I don't make my choices base on the D or R or I or what ever is behind the candidates name

0

Dan Shores 10 months, 2 weeks ago

As I said, the CBO report is positive news for the job picture and the economy going forward. Take the time to listen to the testimony of the gentleman who wrote the report. He makes my point perfectly clear. I also do not vote on strictly party lines. I listen to the message and make my decision. The message I hear from the republicans is not one that I am interested in. My point about the representation in the state of Colorado is just that it is the will of the people. That's how we roll in this country. Majority wins. John, you can pretend all you want, it's OK with me. I have no idea what you mean by emperor. I have a question for you. How much time do you spend watching Fox News or listening to right wing radio? You are just repeating the nonsense that they are telling you. It is fine with me if you want to hate the President and I know that you are either unable or unwilling to look at the facts. Just look at the historical record of what the economic situation was 6 years ago and compare it to today. It's the same with the IRS, Benghazi, the NSA, there is just no there there. There is not a shred of evidence in any of these phony scandals to suggest the the administration did anything improper or tried to cover anything up. Investigation after investigation, hearing after hearing with all the same result yet the right wing is obsessed with trying to discredit the President. They are so obsessed that they can't and won't focus on the real issues that face this nation today. It is just pure obstructionism, lies, deception, anything to besmirch the President whom they think is illegitimate, the other, not one of us. This has been the right wing position since the day he was elected. The right wing just can't bring themselves to believe that they lost and that the American people don't believe their rhetoric, their lies, their inability to accept the truth, their inability to accept the facts. As I said the American people have seen the destruction caused by 8 years under republican leadership and they aren't having anymore of it!

0

john bailey 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Dan S. will you answer my last 2 questions? I do about 2 hours on Fox and yet you call it nonsense , you see we're just going in circles and i'm getting dizzy. K , hard to stomach the others and I listen to The Huddle , ever hear of it ? Brian has a great show. see how few words I use. try it sometime. if ya don't mind , I think we're done here. get out and get some of this snow and have a great weekend.

0

Dan Shores 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Thanks John, I'm gettin plenty of the fresh stuff, it's one of my three jobs. What difference does it make where I was born. I was born in a major city on the west coast, in an inner city neighborhood if that helps. Here is a quote for you to ponder, "One who is afraid to examine the past cannot see the future." And yes, what you are hearing on Fox News is pure nonsense.

0

john bailey 10 months, 2 weeks ago

cheese and rice, and you can't read . when , not where you were born and whats your line of work ? but where you came from may say alot too....good quote , you may want to think about that one too. your left slanting shows are better......? HA , hum why do you work 3 jobs ? are they part time ? low pay , very telling....

0

Dan Shores 10 months, 1 week ago

John, should I let you have the last word?.......... Nah. Sorry, I did indeed misread your earlier post, no need to personally attack me, that's not a good idea. The question was when. 1952, again what difference does it make? Now you are speaking in some sort of riddles. Why. Why don't you just say what you mean? Are you afraid? Are you afraid that you won't make any sense? The reason I have three jobs is because I need to make money to support my family. What's very telling about that? I think that you can assume that some of them are part time. Would be pretty tough even for me to work three full time jobs. What difference could it possibly make what I do for a living? What difference could it possibly make where I "come from." I would love to hear your reasons for asking these questions. This should be good.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 1 week ago

Interesting quote Mr. Shores. To whom is it attributed. Here is a similar one I am familiar with "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

0

john bailey 10 months, 1 week ago

Dan S. , where am I attacking you ? I want to know who i am having a conversation with , simple as that. ah the mystery is solved. now what was your line of work, construction ,a carpenter? my bad , you always answered that one . did you ever tell where you get your work from , locals , 2nd home owners.... . I see by the lack of participation by earlier posters that engaging you is a lost cause. so with that I give you the last word . you know your starting to sound like Hillary , what difference does it make.......and please get your quotes right . hope and change ~;0)

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 1 week ago

Hey Dan S. Here is more right wing spin from one of the economists that helped formulate the CBO report on the ACA. I will attempt to provide a link to the whole article if my computer skills allow. " But are we saying we were working too much before? Is that the new argument? I mean make up your mind. We've been complaining for six years now that there's not enough work being done. . . . Even before the recession there was too little work in the economy. Now all of a sudden we wake up and say we're glad that people are working less? We're pursuing our dreams?"

The larger betrayal, Mr. Mulligan argues, is that the same economists now praising the great shrinking workforce used to claim that ObamaCare would expand the labor market.

He points to a 2011 letter organized by Harvard's David Cutler and the University of Chicago's Harold Pollack, signed by dozens of left-leaning economists including Nobel laureates, stating "our strong conclusion" that ObamaCare will strengthen the economy and create 250,000 to 400,000 jobs annually. (Mr. Cutler has since qualified and walked back some of his claims.)

"Why didn't they say, no, we didn't mean the labor market's going to get bigger. We mean it's going to get smaller in a good way," Mr. Mulligan wonders. "I'm unhappy with that, to be honest, as an American, as an economist. Those kind of conclusions are tarnishing the field of economics, which is a great, maybe the greatest, field. They're sure not making it look good by doing stuff like that."

Mr. Mulligan's investigation into the Affordable Care Act builds on his earlier work studying the 2009 Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka the stimulus." Hopefully, here is a link to the whole article as I don't want to accused of taking some thing out of context.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579367143880532248

0

jerry carlton 10 months, 1 week ago

Dan S. My sympathies at having to work 3 jobs at approximately 61 years of age. I only worked two part time jobs in Steamboat until I landed a fairly decent job from 59 to 65. I am now happily living on Social Security which I and my employers paid into for 51 years. No reason for me to be upset if the Federal government takes my Social Security and gives it to Egypt and Illegal aliens and healthcare and food stamps for drug abusers and outlandish retirement and healthcare benefits for Congress and any other foolishness the liberal majority comes up with. If the liberals do not steal my Social Security, the Republicans will take it and give it to the ultra rich and themselves. Good luck with your retirement.

0

Dan Shores 10 months, 1 week ago

Jerry, Thank you for your concern but I enjoy working and I really enjoy all three of my jobs. I make pretty good money, certainly not rich but doing fine, and I intend to continue working for as long as I can. Two of my jobs are very physical so it keeps me in great shape. I also can't wait to start collecting my social security and take advantage of medicare. John, you still didn't answer what difference it makes how old I am or what I do for work. You said it would be "telling." Telling about what? I don't get it. Some sort of right wing "dog whistle" to your buddies or some sort of preconceived notions. What is telling about how old I am or what kind of work I do? Should be very interesting to hear your theory. You just what to know who you are having a conversation with? Makes no sense. Dan K. go to youtube and find the video of the gentleman who wrote the CBO report speaking about the effect the ACA is anticipated to have on the job market. That says it all. And with all the wining and complaining about the ACA, still no republican plan. Now that's what I call telling. Here's what I think, not that anyone cares, I think John and Dan and Jerry and all of you who are right wingers, assuming that you are, are living in intense fear. Fear is what drives you to ignore factual data. Your like a child fearing the boogeyman living under the bed. You hate the government because you are afraid of the government. You dislike and distrust and fear anyone who doesn't look like you or think like you. That's why you tend to be intolerant of other's views. It's also why you choose to ignore factual data because it doesn't fit with your ideological views and your personal narrative. If you were able to look at the facts and accept reality your world view would collapse and you couldn't bear it. So you just go on, ignoring the facts that don't fit and making up all sorts of conspiracies about the evil government and the foreign President who doesn't look like you, share your beliefs and is secretly plotting to destroy this nation. That's what I think.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 1 week ago

Mr. Shores, I can't speak for Jerry or John but I can tell you for myself how disgusting it is to have you speak about those of us in such an accusatory manner because we happen to disagree with you. To the best of my knowledge you and I have never met so how do you "know" what I am like. At no time in this string of posts have I ever lashed out at you. I certainly don't agree with much of what you say but I choose to provide information from studies and articles to suggest politely that maybe all what you believe is not as it seems. You choose to lash out. Now that I do find "telling". And once again to refute one of your statements "and with all the whining and complaining about the ACA, still no republican plan".

This article is from the right wing news source NPR - wink, humor, ha ha Key Senate Republicans Offer Their Plan To Replace Obamacare

Julie Rovner January 27, 2014 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579367143880532248

PS: I have no bone to pick regards affordable health care for all. It's a great idea. I wish the ACA was working. I just happen to believe the ACA is not the way to do it and no Mr. Shores I do not personally have a replacement plan to suggest.

0

Dan Shores 10 months, 1 week ago

Dan K, I am very sorry that you interpreted my comments as being accusatory or lashing out and I mean no offense to anyone. I re-read my post and I just don't see it that way. There is no shame in being afraid. I have heard combat veterans say that anyone who tells you they aren't afraid is either a liar or a fool. Rational fear is a good thing such as being afraid if you are driving too fast on an icy road. Irrational fear is the issue. Fear that the government is going to take away your guns, fear that the government is going to take all you money and give it to the poor, the takers, fear that the President wants to become a dictator or an emperor. Fear of minority, elderly and disadvantaged voters. Fear of young African American males as exhibited by the right wing hero George Zimmerman who murdered an innocent black teenager because he was walking in a neighborhood where he didn't belong and was probably "up to no good." Fear that the President is some Manchurian Candidate who is intent on destroying our country. Why else would the right demand to see his birth certificate and then when he produces it claim that it must be a forgery. Fear that if gays marry it will somehow destroy our values and threaten the very institution of marriage. All of these fears are just as real as the fear of the boogeyman living under the bed and these fears are just as irrational and they reside in the same place as the fear of the boogeyman, in ones brain only. There is not one shred, not one iota of evidence to support any of these fears. It's the same with Benghazi, the IRS, the NSA, despite all the hearings and investigations not one shred of evidence to suggest a cover up or some nefariuos activity being engaged in by the administration. The insistence that the President is tearing the country down and ruining our economy when if you compare the economic data from today to where we were when the President took office it is obvious that we have made huge strides despite all the republican obsrtuctionism. So unless someone can come up with a better, rational, fact based explanation for the right wing behavior, I like my theory. Again, no offense intended.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 1 week ago

Mr. Shores, It has been enjoyable communicating with you. By now. Any one who follows this post understands that you have no tolerance for any one who disagrees with you or the president. I have enjoyed your continued regurgitation of liberal talking points. You claim you don't lash out. Okay, you demean and insult, is that better. You said you don't intend to offend me. No worries, only people that I have respectful discussions with can offend me. You sir, have no interest in having a respectful discussion. Your only interest is in insulting those that disagree with you.

0

Dan Shores 10 months, 1 week ago

Dan, It is very interesting that you interpret my remarks as insulting. There is a book called "The Republican Brain" and it describes your reaction to my comments almost exactly. This is quite a typical reaction of someone who would follow and believe in republican ideology. The book suggests that the republican brain chooses to disregard fact and what is real and will become agitated and feel insulted when confronted with the facts and the truth. The more facts that are presented, the angrier and more resentful the person becomes. As I said the truth does not work with what you, (I am speaking of you collectively), want to believe and this creates conflict hence the angry reaction. I really don't mean any harm or disrespect and I am not surprised by your reaction. You can see this behavior pattern over and over again in the republican mind. Refusal to believe facts, as with the Presidents birth certificate, then becoming angry at the suggestion that the theory that the President is not a citizen is clearly false. Well....the birth certificate must be a forgery. I could fill a volume with similar stories but it wouldn't make any difference because the republican brain just cannot accept factual data if it doesn't fit with pre-concieved notions. I believe that it is my duty as an American and a patriot to defend our President and our country from baseless, senseless, biased attacks that have not one shred of evidence to support their outlandish claims of vast conspiracies and nefarious motives. As I have said earlier, we have seen what happens to our country when republican ideology is allowed to fester, as evidenced by the last republican administration, and I intend to do all that I can to insure that the truth is heard and that we do not allow republican ideology and war mongering to threaten the very existence of the greatest nation the world has ever known. Thank you.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 1 week ago

Mr. Shores, "if you like your plan you can keep your plan. period. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. period." I know, I know. you have liberal talking points that will explain those statements. But I digress. Here is an interesting commentary and I hope you will take time to read and comment as I so much look forward to your liberal talking points interpretation. I have posted a quick snippet of the commentary and then provided a link to the whole piece.

"The devil is in the details, we are told, and the details are often buried in an appendix or footnote. This week we were confronted with a rather troubling appendix in the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of the Affordable Care Act, which suggests that the act will have a rather profound impact on employment patterns. You could tell a person's political leaning by how they responded. Republicans jumped all over this. The conservative Washington Times, for instance, featured this headline: "Obamacare will push 2 million workers out of labor market: CBO." Which is not what the analysis says at all. Liberals immediately downplayed the import by suggesting that all it really said was that people will have more choice about how they work, giving them more free time to play with their kids and pets and pursue other activities. Who could be against spending more time with your children?"

http://d21uq3hx4esec9.cloudfront.net/uploads/pdf/140209_TFTF2.pdf

All who read this post may find the attached article an interesting read. would like to hear comments from all.

0

Kevin Nerney 10 months, 1 week ago

Dan K. here's my take on the article and the rest of the discussion. Besides being jealous of not being able to afford to go to Argentina and Africa, I think he is absolutely correct about where obamacare will lead us. Lets put it in simple layman's terms. I am an hourly wage earner like most people. Let's say I make a hundred dollars a day. I decide to take a day off and go skiing and a lift ticket costs one hundred dollars. That is a 200 dollar swing for my bank account. It won't take long until I am in the same boat as the US gov't (in hock up to my ears). Now the CBO says people will be taking off and working less in order to stay home with the kids. Lets say that kid wants to get some ice cream. It's going to cost twice as much for the ice cream now. ($10.00 not working for an hour and $10.00 for the ice cream.) If I'm currently paying roughly 28 percent of my paycheck towards taxes and I start making less to stay home with that kid thats that much less I'm paying into the system and now the system has that much less for cops, roads, education etc. etc. How is that sustainable? Am I missing something? Perhaps Ken Collins or Dan S can correct my logic and straighten things out for me, but the way I see it this obamacare thing is a losing proposition.

0

Dan Shores 10 months, 1 week ago

Dan K. Don't be too shocked but I am going to agree with you here. The President did lie when he said you can keep your insurance. I don't know why he lied, if it was to help sell the plan or if it was what he believed or if he just misspoke, he still lied. Just like Mr McConnell is lying when he says that Colorado's new gun laws are unconstitutional. That may be his opinion but it is not a fact. I also am not totally thrilled with the ACA, but it's the best we got. I'm also glad that you agree that access to health insurance for all is a good thing. At least with the ACA access to health insurance is now the right of all American's instead of a privilege. The affordable part did not work out for us in Routt County so clearly there is work to be done. The republicans in congress blocked the President's preferred single payer system or public option which would have kept the cost down. The republicans still have not produced a viable plan that covers people with pre-existing conditions. They are attempting once again to try to fool us into thinking there plan does but they have indeed admitted that it only covers pre-existing conditions if you have had continuous coverage, if you haven't like me, you are SOL. As far as the CBO report goes, I also have no problem with your interpretation of the report. The language is ambiguous in my opinion and difficult to understand so I think a factual debate is just fine. After all it is an estimate of future events and no one can know for sure what is going to happen. What I do know is that I saw a Q&A with the author of the report and it went something like this, Q: Are you saying that the ACA will lead to an increased demand for labor? A: Yes. Q: Are you saying that there will be a shortage of labor due to the fact that some workers may elect to work fewer hours because they no longer have to work 40 hours in order to receive health insurance? A: Yes. Iam way to busy with my work right now, thank goodness, to research all of this and to be honest it really doesn't interest me. But thanks Dan, I think it is great to debate when we are talking about facts instead of make believe. Kevin, as I have said, analogies are always difficult and yours is way to complex for me to understand. Maybe you can summarize and just make you case simply so I can understand what you are saying. If the ACA is a losing proposition as you suggest, what is your plan? Do you believe that access to health insurance for all American's even with a pre-existing condition should be a right or a privilege? That's the central question here in my view. Thanks.

0

Kevin Nerney 10 months, 1 week ago

Here is why I think health care is not a right but a privilege. Pay for it yourself. Not once have I heard about Dr.'s lowering their prices because that's how capitalism works. Why can the gov't be allowed to tell insurance co's how much or who they can charge but not tell the Doctors what the rates can be. No I am not smart enough to have an alternative plan (not even smart enough to post a link that was done by my son) and my response was to Dan K's link to the article. I can't make it any more simple than logic 101. If A than B, if A and B than C. My economy is a microcosm of the Gov't as a whole.

0

john bailey 10 months, 1 week ago

now why would they change , yet again , the rules to this law Obamacare ? a politic move or something else ? Kevin i'm just a common skilled labor kinda fella , but I surely understood your prior post. and i agree with your take on the Dr's point of view. its all about the insurance but has anyone talked to the people that provide the care ?..... crazy , i know....

0

Dan Shores 10 months, 1 week ago

Kevin, I hear ya on the posting a link the but I did finally figure out how to do it.

0

Kevin Nerney 10 months, 1 week ago

Apparently the kid ain't as smart as he thinks. The link never made it. Anyway the link was to the newest Cadillac commercial, about working hard and getting ahead. What America is all about, not working less and still getting free stuff.

0

john bailey 10 months, 1 week ago

imagine that , working hard to get what you want and getting ahead , oh wait that's what the tax payer is for, weak and getting weaker.....

0

Dan Shores 10 months, 1 week ago

Kevin, so you believe that access to health insurance should be a privilege that only some have access to. If that is really your view, your lack of compassion for your fellow human beings is stunning. You are a fine example of the true republican spirit, you got yours, to hell with everyone else. And the continued fantasy that people don't want to work and are getting free stuff, that people somehow enjoy being poor. A perfect example of the disfunction that is the hallmark of your parties ideology and the reason why the party is fracturing and at it lowest popularity rating in memory and will likely never again occupy the White House in our lifetimes. Way to go.

0

john bailey 10 months, 1 week ago

why do you think everyone is a Republican ? oh the liberal mind ....there are more than the 2 party way of thinking . weak and getting weaker.....your intolerance is showing again . you know there is a word for that .

0

john bailey 10 months, 1 week ago

just re-reading the rants in your posts , you would think your party would be embarrassed to have that kind of thinking connected to them. well at least your a , what did you call it ? a Patriot. jejeje yeah right ~;0)

0

Kevin Nerney 10 months, 1 week ago

Dan S. Joe Nerney here, Kevin's son. Question when did my dad ever say that everyone go to hell? and even if he is a republican (he's an Independent btw) what is wrong with believing in hand ups and not hand outs? You know I can't stand people like yourself. Automatically assume that because you want people to be given everything and you don't believe that people should have to contribute to society in order to receive said gifts that you are compassionate. What happened to the old mantra "give a man a fish feed him for a day, teach a man to fish feed him for a lifetime"

Joe Nerney Afghanistan Veteran (so don't tell me I'm not compassionate)

0

Dan Shores 10 months, 1 week ago

John, so what is your idea of a patriot? Disrespecting the commander in chief and making false claims about his citizenship? Blocking everything he tries to accomplish and then blaming him for not getting things done? Doesn't sound very patriotic to me. Funny how the right wing mind works. And did you read the part about the republican brain, how you get angrier and angrier when confronted with the truth. Typical that you view my comments as rants as you can't accept the truth? You still haven't answered the question of how my age and profession are "telling." Be interesting to hear your theory. Oh and you're right, I should have said right wing instead of republican. Of course I have no idea of Kevin's party affiliation but I think it is safe to assume that he is a fan of republican ideology.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 1 week ago

Ah Dan S. you are a beauty you are. You make me chuckle. A few days ago there was a somewhat reasonable discussion about a link to an article I posted. Now all of a sudden somebody disagreed with you and it's back to the liberal talking points rants I have so come to enjoy. You must have a room full of ouija boards, tarot cards and other predictive devices as you sure seem comfortable with putting anybody that disagrees with you or the president into the republican/right wing box. Are you saying it is not ok to disagree with the president. My guess is you disagreed plenty with the Bush administration. That is fine by me. There have been things done, policy enacted by every president in my lifetime that I have disagreed with. Oh well, life is still pretty good. A couple of last thoughts - If Mia Love disagrees with Pres. Obama is she a racist? If you don't know who she is, google her. I saw this quote the other day and it made think of your continuing accusation that those who disagree with Obama might be doing so because they are racist. "I am not a racist because I don't like Joe Biden either." I will be looking forward to my next chuckle of the day. Cheers.

0

john bailey 10 months, 1 week ago

asking those questions let me know if I was dealing with anyone with any life experiences like a wet behind the ear 20 something or of someone with years under their belt , such as you. so then you pull the victim card and say I am attacking you , show me the attack , please. and on to the race card , nowhere in the string was race brought up till you did. the person you placed in charge is being judged on his merit here , not race. taking those few things into account leads me to believe with whom i'm dealing with , what do they call that ? a left wing nut job. (LWNJ) all these claims you make are a generalization you lump on our fellow posters here. give proof of party affiliation , please. as I see you are SAFELY assuming all of us are Republicans. lastly your intolerance is showing your true colors of that of a, according to my Webster dictionary , of showing intolerance toward anyone who disagrees with ones beliefs , be it religious , race , or political , is by definition , a bigot. now get back to your 3 jobs , your family is counting on you. ~;0) no hula for you....now wheres my pen and phone ? I have an agenda to shove down the American throats...

0

Dan Shores 10 months, 1 week ago

Joe, first of all thank you for your service. I remember when you enlisted and I'm glad that you made it home safe. You are a brave man. As a member of the military, I'm pretty sure that you took an oath to defend our country and the commander in chief, who happens to be Barack Obama, from all enemies, foreign or domestic, or something like that. Well that's all I have been doing here. Defending our President and his policies. I never said anything about hand outs or free stuff or anything of the sort. Where did I say that I want everyone to be given everything or did I say that people shouldn't have to contribute to society in order to receive gifts. I have no idea what you have been reading. I was writing about access to health insurance that people PAY for. Your dad said that he thinks that access to health insurance should be a privilege and not a right. So that means that only some people should have access to health insurance while others are out of luck and if they get sick, too bad. So if you think that is being compassionate, then so be it. I strongly disagree, the President disagrees and the majority of Americans disagree with you, if that's what you are saying. What is your idea of compassion with regard to the issue of access to health insurance if you have a pre-existing medical condition? As far as the "can go to hell" part goes, I didn't say that your dad said that, I was clearly referring to republican ideology. So ask yourself, do you really believe that poor people enjoy being poor and the reason they are poor is just that they are lazy? You must have know lots of hard working courageous Americans in the military that are from poor families, do you think they enjoy being poor? Do you think they are just lazy?

0

Dan Shores 10 months, 1 week ago

Dan K, no I'm not saying that it is not OK to disagree with the President. It is healthy and the American way to have differing view points. I'm just saying lets debate about reality and fact. If you accuse the President of doing or saying something that he didn't do or say that is not a reasonable argument. If you criticize without being able to back up your claim with factual verifiable evidence, or if you deny facts that are presented you are being disingenuous and not willing to accept reality and there can be no debate. That's what I am saying. Again, the you is meant as a collective, so don't take it personal. John, with regard to the personal attack, you accused me of not being able to read, no big deal, but it was a personal attack. With regard to the race card, I merely asked a question, so I can't ask a question? I'm intolerant? Your not republican leaning? Maybe so. So how tolerant are you with regard to gay marriage, a women's right to chose regarding her reproductive rights, how about Muslim's, hasn't the republican party accused the President as being a Muslim, as if there was something wrong with that, how tolerant are you of different religious beliefs. You don't need to answer me, answer yourself. With regard to debating issues and my so called intolerance see the comments above. And yes I am intolerant of phony arguments, straw man arguments and those who choose to deny or disregard factual evidence when presented. As far as the republican party goes, the current iteration is what I have a problem with. The republican party of the Reagan days was totally different from the radical right wing Tea Party types that we are dealing with today. Reagan couldn't even get on that ballot in todays republican party, if you can even call it that. There are many reasonable right wing talkers in the media that make sensible fact based arguments that are very interesting to listen to. People like Michael Steele, John Feerhey, Ron Christie, Steve Schmidt, all make salient points. They are in the media and would be laughed of the program if they made some of the crazy claims that are made buy some of you all here. So, no I'm not intolerant of reasonable people.

0

john bailey 10 months, 1 week ago

what the gays do is their choice, what a women does is her choice, religion what ? what ever. but nice back pedaling . much different tone then the rest of your rants , it must be tough to be you. your just flat out a bigot. ones views are shaped by ones observations , I see no need to present why I think the way I do in any manner. also i think you need to stop embarrassing the party that you belong to... weak and getting weaker.

1

Dan Shores 10 months, 1 week ago

John, if you want to call me a bigot because I am intolerant of liars, people who refuse to accept facts and deny the truth, people who create wild conspiracy theories, people who accuse me and others of saying or believing things that I didn't say and don't believe, people who believe that only some people should be able to purchase health insurance, then fine, I must be a bigot to you. You said that the President was running the country into the ground. Why aren't you able to articulate any factual reason in support of this statement and why can't you produce any documentation to support your claim? Oh, and please explain how defending our President is not a patriotic act. I forgot Dan K., the reason we started to have a sensible debate is because you presented some factual evidence to support your claims. You didn't make stuff up and make allegations about some bizarre government conspiracy theory. That is the only reason and I welcome this kind of interaction.

0

john bailey 10 months, 1 week ago

the proof is all around us , I see no reason to present anything . open your eyes. your posts are just a repeat of your lame talking points , what did someone call it a regurgitation of the same left wing BS. give it a rest or are you just hell bent on having the last word....weak and getting weaker.....you are lame....

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 1 week ago

Dan S. Thanks for recognizing that I used factual evidence to support my claims. When will you use factual evidence to support your claims instead of using Media Matters/MoveOn.Org talking points to support yours. Oh no, I disagreed with you. Here come the liberal talking points. Make my day. Another. Chuckle coming soon

0

mark hartless 10 months, 1 week ago

"That's how we roll in this country. Majority wins." That's true. We do function that way, but it's actually supposed to be a republic, not a "majority wins" nation. A lynch mob, a rape gang, two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. All these are "majority wins" situations, Dan. Are they fair? Are they just? Is that cause for celebration??

"You hate the government because you are afraid of the government." Well Dan, you hit the nail on the head for me with that one. I do indeed hate the government. And not just a little bit. I hate the government with the seering white-hot heat of ten thousand suns.

Fear the government? Indeed I do. I believe that, in the mortal realm, the Federal government of the US of A is the single most dangerous entity that has ever existed on the face of this Earth.

Furthermore, Dan, I believe that anyone who celebrates majority rule when the majority is as demonstrably inept as today's, and anyone who does not fear the government, is either hopelessly, helplessly, haplessly naive or totally stoned, or both. Momma always said "ignorance is bliss".

1

Kevin Nerney 10 months, 1 week ago

Dan S Joe here once again. first things first

"I, _, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

No citizen is any more important than the next I swore to defend the constitution and the country not the man. and yes it says to follow all orders but there is a great organization within all public servants (military police fire ect) called the oath keepers basically saying all constitutional orders only (which is accepted across the board but i digress

as for what you said to my dad please be sure to reread your comments before you claim i put words in your mouth and i quote- "If that is really your view, your lack of compassion for your fellow human beings is stunning. You are a fine example of the true republican spirit, you got yours, to hell with everyone else"

I apologize you said you want affordable healthcare for all (fun fact if you are not gainfully employed you get it for free and if you are gainfully employed it isn't affordable I have a family I've looked into it myself) so i am sorry that i put words into your mouth i simply used basic logic (if a then b if a&b then c) I never called my dad compassionate, his views on healthcare aside, he was a fireman and EMT in NYC for 20 years THAT is why he is compassionate as for the majority of Americans? if you look at current polls (which is what we base most of our politics on) support is way below the majority from CNN December 23: Only 35% of those questioned in the poll say they support the health care law, a 5-point drop in less than a month. Sixty-two percent say they oppose the law, up four points from November.

so no the majority of americans are not with the president on this law

as for poor people no i do not believe that poor people enjoy being poor that being said they give up and accept it and with laws like the (un)affordable care act and things like that it allows people to accept their plight in life and go well why do i need to work harder and progress when i have everything at my current salary given to me by the federal govt

I have a question for you Dan do you agree with the White House when they said it is a good thing that millions of people being forced off of full time into part time is better for home lives and that the employee will be happier because they can spend more time with their families?

1

Dan Shores 10 months, 1 week ago

Dan K., If you re-read my comments you will see tons and tons of factual evidence that the economy has improved tremendously since the disaster of the Bush administration policies. I was rebutting John's claim that the President is running the country into the ground. John has still not offered one single shred of evidence to support his claim that the President is running the country into the ground. So far all he can come up with is that I can't read and that I am a bigot because I don't agree with his views. Saying you heard it on Fox News is not evidence. Joe, I am aware that your dad was a firefighter and I knew you would use this argument. He is to be admired for sure but that doesn't give you a pass when it comes to denying people access to health insurance, that they pay for, just because they have a pre-existing medical condition. This view is so out of touch with what most people in this country believe, again, stunningly selfish. Even the republican party agrees and Dan K agree that we can't go back to where we were and that access to health insurance for all American's is a good thing and a worthwhile pursuit. You are correct about the affordable part though for people who live in ski towns. It is quite affordable for people who don't. Example, before the ACA the only way I could get heath insurance was through the State of Colorado. My premium would have been around $1,300 per month. Is it reasonable to pay that much Joe? Under the ACA my premium in Routt county would be around $600 per month. Still can't afford it. When I enter a Denver area code in the exchange, my premium is around $300 per month. I can afford that. So there you go. As far as the poor go, what is your answer to the issue, should we let them starve to death, or maybe they will become so desperate for food that they will commit more crimes in order to eat. It's fine to criticize but you should have a solution to the problem instead of just being negative. Here's another little tidbit for you, did you realize that most people who receive public assistance are white people. I'm not saying that it matters to you, but you cannot deny the the right has used the reference to the welfare queen and the strapping young buck as far back as Ronald Reagan. Oh sorry, if you are a right winger you will deny this FACT. I'm also not sure about you not respecting the man comment. Can't you be subject to a Courts Marshall preceding for disrespecting the President. Not sure, but I thought I heard something about that. I would check on that . Also, assuming that I believe some crazy idea that people should get some kind of hand out and not contribute to society because I support our president and his policies, making that leap, that assumption, is called prejudice. Mark H, while I don't agree with your views I respect your right to your opinion and I have no problem with that. I respect all of you and your right to your opinion as long as you don't lie and make stuff up. Thank you.

0

john bailey 10 months, 1 week ago

your not a Patriot , your a left wing boot licker , now stop embarrassing yourself and your party....weak and getting weaker....

1

Dan Shores 10 months, 1 week ago

Interesting that the reputation of the republican party has gotten so bad that even the right wing commenters above don't want to be identified as republican. I thought it might be helpful if I prepared a little questionnaire to help you all figure out you part affiliation. Just ask yourself if you agree or disagree with the following and that should clear things up.

Only some people should have access to heath insurance. Poor people are poor because they are lazy and they just don't want to work. You believe that voter fraud is real and must be dealt with You favor restricting early voting and making it more difficult to vote You believe eliminating voting on the Sunday before an election will reduce voter fraud The rich should get more tax brakes and be paid for by cutting assistance to the poor Big corporations and the oil industry should get government subsidies Abortion should be banned under all circumstances You support the personhood amendment Contraception should be banned Women should not be paid as much as men for the same work All gun laws should be repealed You believe that background checks for gun purchases are unconstitutional You believe limits on magazine size are unconstitutional You believe that gays should not be allowed to marry You believe this is a Christian nation You would support a Christian theocratic form of government You don't believe in science Evolution and the big bang theory are lies straight from the pit of hell You prefer to deny factual evidence and stick to you ideology You want to eliminate government agencies but you can't remember which ones You want to eliminate extended unemployment insurance The rich are the job creators, the "makers"and everyone else are the "takers" Everyone would be rich and successful if they weren't so lazy You prefer war over diplomacy for conflict resolution You never met a war you didn't like You still believe in trickle down economics even though the rich have seen there investments more than double in value in the last 5 years but they haven't created more jobs You believe that bipartisan compromise means that you get everything you want without giving up anything in return You believe that blocking every proposal that the president puts forth is a good idea You don't believe that the President is a US citizen You believe that everything you hear on Fox News is the absolute truth

If you agree with all of these statements you are a bona fide, true blue, nut case Tea Party whacko republican and Mike Huckabee is your man. If you agree with most of these statements you are a solid republican. If you agree with half of these statements you are a RINO. If you don't agree with any of these statements you are a progressive or liberal and would most likely vote for the Democratic candidate. I hope this helps and good luck.

0

Dan Shores 10 months, 1 week ago

Just for fun, let's see if we can get to 100 comments. Only 14 to go.

0

john bailey 10 months, 1 week ago

13 , and if you believe all this so called leader tells us , your a left wing wack job and Chris Mathews is your man or is that Rachel Maddow ?. just clean up the piss on your leg.....~;0) no worries i'll delay till after the next round of elections.....weak and getting weaker.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 1 week ago

Dan S. You have made my day. As I predicted you would throw down another mediamatters/moveon.org liberal talking points rant and you did not let me down. You indeed have provided me with my chuckle for the day. I do not know any of those who post. Some I agree with, some I disagree with. My guess is most are reasonable people who view things taking each item on it's own. The only one I see in the 80+ posts who is a one way or the highway ideologue appears to be you. I have no problem with that. You are just as entitled to your opinions as any one else that posts here. You can put all the posters in a tiny little box even though you most likely have never met them. Your crystal ball amazes me. Here is an interesting read. will look forward to your reply. More truth is said in jest. Touring Monticello last week with French president François Hollande, Obama joked about breaking protocol: “That’s the good thing as president. I can do whatever I want.” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/02/an-executive-unbound-the-obama-administrations-unilateral-actions PS: Jonathon Turley happens to have similar opinion. If you don't know who he is google him.

1

john bailey 10 months, 1 week ago

Dan S. are you ashamed to tell where you came from ? the west coast has more than one state , or is that 6 of the 57 we have? you a showing what a left wing elitist is like, you can only post as I say you can anything different and you are beneath me. I have no tolerance for you , no facts to backup an opinion you are worthless., go away. ~;0) weak and getting weaker.....oh and Dan K. wasn't the place closed ?

1

Kevin Nerney 10 months, 1 week ago

I could write a post as long as War and Peace to answer Mr. Shores rhetorical questions. But at the risk of boring the other bloggers I'll weigh in on some of them. First this is Kevin (why the rest of the family can't get their own log in is beyond me) anyway,why must everything be all or nothing. I would prefer a candidate who picks issues like a Chinese menu one from column A and one from B.(the way I wish I could pick my TV stations as opposed to getting a package of crap I don't want). An independent thinker can agree with ideas that come from either side of the aisle, if it is a good idea and works it shouldn't matter who came up with it. Yes, despite what has happened in the last 6 years this is a Christian nation. That is the way it was founded and the way it operated until recently. Last I checked my capitalist money says "IN GOD WE TRUST",not trust in allah. Yes the rich get richer and they do create jobs just check out any edition of Shark Tank, those people are making money and hiring others WITHOUT and Despite Uncle Sam. (they did build that). Yes election day should be a national holiday (no not for another excuse to have a sale) and all legal citizens should show current ID that proves they are allowed to vote. Did the govt. bail anyone out back during the Great Depression, not that I was taught. No one should be to big to fail. Finally since this is a Free country no one should be allowed to tell me where I can live. By you saying that insurance is $1000 cheaper in Denver you imply that Uncle Sam says you should live in Denver. NO-- if you want insurance pay for it. I don't want to subsidize your premium just so you can live here and I don't have the right to tell you to move. And if you can't afford insurance here and you don't want to move then you stay uninsured. Has nothing to do with my compassion. If your house is burning I will save you and put it out, and if tomorrow you break into my house and try to rob me you will be shot. Compassion has nothing to do with either scenario. I could go on but I think I'd be beating my head against the wall. Trying to get to 100 post is waste of time if the only thing filling those posts is hot air.

0

jerry carlton 10 months, 1 week ago

Dan S. Short, true story.. Grocery line last week. Younger couple. Paid for groceries with SNAP card {food stamps}. Spent more on beer for cash than on groceries. Two questions for you. Should tax payers buy their groceries so they can buy beer? Do you have a plan to stop this if you think we should not have to buy their groceries?

0

john bailey 10 months, 1 week ago

i'll bite ,1 no , 1a wrong, 2 leave Sunday alone and need an ID , 3-8 no ,9 not all ,10 no, 11 no restrictions on mag size constitution is not involved , 12marry all you want ,13 mostly yes ,14 leave religion out of it ,15 both are compelling but I lean to evolution ,16 no , 17 the ones that are a waste and full of fraud ,18 yes , 19 mostly but , are not gov. created jobs paid for by tax payers ? so then you pay your own wages ? I recall a conversation with a local firefighter about this a while back and he commented about the irony of this in a humorous manner. nice guy.... I'd like to see more entrepreneurial jobs created , but alas more gubbint BS red tape..., 20-22 no , 23 Gov red tape contributes to this , I wont give you xit about your spelling , 24-25 no ,26 US citizen , 27 no.... if I got them in proper order , you have it put together like one of your left wing rants....and avoid what appears to be trick and or double negative questions , but that's just my reading capabilities of our public school system. so what is my label Dan S. ? now i'm confused , but that's how the left rolls.......~;0) good job oh crap I have no facts to back up my answers AGAIN....so , uh what state are you from , I wont laugh ...

1

Dan Shores 10 months, 1 week ago

I forgot a couple statements to help figure out your party affiliation.

You believe that the Iraq war was justified and worth the trillions of dollars and loss of life. You believe that Iraq was responsible for the attacks of 911. You believe that the Bush administration had nothing to do with the economic collapse that happened during the Bush administration. You believe that the economy was humming along when Obama took office and all of the economic problems are Obama's his fault. You believe that George Zimmerman was justified in killing Trayvon Martin because Mr. Martin shouldn't have been walking in a neighborhood where he didn't belong and he was probably up to no good and had it coming.

You can add these statements to the others posted above. Hope it helps.

I would also like to make a correction to all of my previous posts. I shouldn't have assumed that you all were republicans, this was my mistake and the reason for the questionnaire. Strike out republican and insert right wing. There, that's better.

Dan K, glad I could make you smile. I saw the story about Obama and the French president. I guess Obama wasn't making a statement in jest but was admitting that he considers himself to be a dictator, or emperor or something. Funny!

We're almost to 100. We can make it if we try.

0

john bailey 10 months, 1 week ago

back peddling again , you sound like your messiah , sorry no additions , what am I from my answers ? hurry the Olympics are on....~;0)

1

john bailey 10 months, 1 week ago

come on , what city and state are you from? I answered a lot more questions from you .

1

Dan Shores 10 months, 1 week ago

Kevin, I agree about picking the issues that you like no matter which party came up with them. The government doesn't determine your insurance rates, insurance companies do. I was speaking about access to insurance for people with pre-existing medical conditions like me. It's say's in God we trust. It doesn't say in Jesus we trust and makes no reference to Christianity and there is nothing in the constitution that makes reference to Christianity, for good reason. The auto industry and the financial industry did receive bail outs in the form of government backed loans which have all been paid back with interest. This was a brilliant and courageous act by our government that prevented an actual economic depression like during the thirties or maybe even worse. Hey John thanks for giving me a break on my spelling, I know it's really bad and even with spell check I still make some errors.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 1 week ago

Mr. Shores, You have complained about John not answering your questions. I asked you about Mia Love - no response I asked you about the following article - no response http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/02/an-executive-unbound-the-obama-administrations-unilateral-actions I asked for an attribution to a quotation you used - no response I referenced Jonathon Turley - no response. Actually I am not surprised as the above items would not fit into your narrative. Speaking of Mr. Turley, here are some recent statements he made regarding the current administration.

TURLEY: Well, I'm afraid it's quite serious because the framers created a system that was designed to avoid one principle thing, the concentration of power in any one branch. Because that balancing between these branches in this fixed orbit is what not only gives stability to our system but it protects us against authoritarian power, it protects civil liberties from abuse.

And what we've been seeing is the shift of gravity within that system in a very dangerous way that makes it unstable, and I think that's what the president is doing. I think that we've become a nation of enablers. We are turning a blind eye to a fundamental change in our system. I think many people will come to loathe that they remained silent during this period.

TURLEY: I'm afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left. I happen to agree with many of President Obama's policies, but in our system it is often as important how you do something as what you do.

And I think that many people will look back at this period in history and see nothing but confusion as to why people remained so silent when the president asserted these types of unilateral actions. You have a president who is claiming the right to basically rewrite or ignore or negate federal laws. That is a dangerous thing. It has nothing to do with the policies; it has to do with politics.

to be continued

1

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 1 week ago

continuation of Turley statements

TURLEY: Well, you know, a system in which a single individual is allowed to rewrite legislation or ignore legislation is a system that borders on authoritarianism. I don't believe that we are that system yet. But we cannot ignore that we're beginning to ignore a system that is a pretense of democracy if a president is allowed to take a law and just simply say, 'I'm going to ignore this,' or, 'I'm going to shift funds that weren't appropriated by Congress into this area.'

The president's State of the Union indicated this type of unilateralism that he has adopted as a policy. Now, many people view that as somehow empowering. In my view, it's dangerous, that is what he is suggesting is to essentially put our system off line. This is not the first time that convenience has become the enemy of principle. But we've never seen it to this extent

TURLEY: Part of the problem really rests with the federal courts. For the last two decades, federal courts have been engaged in a policy of avoidance. They are not getting involved when the executive branch exceeds its powers, they're just leaving it up to the branches. And often they say Congress has the power of the purse, Congress can simply restrict funds.

But one of the complaints against President Obama is that very clearly dedicated funds in areas like healthcare, have been just shifted by the White House unilaterally to different areas. And the courts have adopted this avoidance policy.

I am astonished by the degree of passivity in Congress, particularly by Democrats. You know, I first came to Congress when I was a young page and there were people that fiercely believed in the institution. It didn't matter what party held the White House. But what we're seeing now is the usurpation of authority that's unprecedented in this country.

Mr. Shores, I will look forward to your interpretation of his remarks. And finally I hate to burst your bubble but I am not a registered republican

1

Dan Shores 10 months, 1 week ago

Thanks John! Kevin, the first amendment to the U.S. constitution prohibits making any law respecting an establishment of religion. I guess you can interpret these words how ever you like but to me it means that we are not a Christian nation. Thank you.

0

Dan Shores 10 months, 1 week ago

Dan K, I didn't say that you were a registered republican, that is the reason for the questionnaire. I don't think a debate about the President being a dictator is worth having. Executive orders are constitutional and have been used by every President in recent memory. As a matter a fact, I have been reading a book about WWII and I was surprised to learn that FDR used an executive order to intern Japanese Americans during the war. Never knew that. This is crazy, I have do get back to work! But congrats to all, we made it to 100!

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 1 week ago

Dan S. As you choose to ignore my questions regards Mia Love, Jonathon Turley and the attribution to a quotation and you have accused most every body that disagrees with you of being a republican, a right winger or both and as I most definitely disagree with most of what you have posted that puts me in that category. Now you can choose to use semantics when you say you have never accused me of being a "registered" republican but that is splitting hairs. John, Jerry, Joe, Kevin et all best of luck and Mr. Shores I bid you adieu.

1

john bailey 10 months, 1 week ago

annoy a liberal..... wake up early, work hard and prosper, be happy......~;0).....salud Dan K......

1

jerry carlton 10 months, 1 week ago

Dan S. No opinion on beer drinking food stamp users?

0

Kevin Nerney 10 months, 1 week ago

Here's an idea that will probably will not come to fruition. All those on this tread and others are invited to the Vintage Bar (attached to Terry Sports) tomorrow Sat. 2/15/14 after a day of skiing. Say 4 or 5 pm. You can introduce yourself or just say your name is Billy Smith since most of us can't put a face to a name. I know discussing politics and religion in a bar is forboddin(sp) taboo or whatever but that place is usually empty anyway so it could become interesting. At least we could agree to disagree and maybe make some progress. Look forward to seeing you all. Rys Jerry, Dan S&K,John Harvey etc. etc.

0

mark hartless 10 months ago

Dan is a classic example of what I have come to believe is the single biggest problem facing the Republic today. It's not that he's a liberal. Rather he, just like many conservatives, is infected with the notion that the "other side's" wrongs excuse the wrongs of "his side".

He is certainly correct that we "are not a christian nation" (anymore); although his assertion that we were not founded on Judeo/ Christian philosophy shows gaping ignorance of historic FACT.

His defense of the current presidents use of executive orders also shows significant ignorance of the constitution; his argument is that "the other guys (previous presidents) did it", is absurd. And the fact that one of the most liberal men ever to sit the White House (FDR) used tyrannical measures, is a laughable excuse for their constitutionality. If anything it sheds light on the tendency of leftists/statists to abuse power. The admission that he failed to learn in junior high school about the internment of Japaneese-Americans by FDR reinforces arguments about our "public fool system".

His assertion that saving a bloated and sub-standard industry with overpaid workers was somehow "brilliant and courageous" is dubious. Other more well-managed automotive companies would have stepped in and purchased those assetts. Bond holders who were, BY LAW, FIRST in line got screwed by the presidents decision. All those people had economic needs as well, but the unions which vote Democrat got the "protection".

He alludes to the President's recent guest; the President of France. Here is a man (obama) who rails about economic inequality and then sits down (proudly and publicly) to sumptious fare including quail eggs. He does so because he knows his supporters will ignore any blatant hypocricy on his part so long as he continues to ram forward their pollitical agenda, by whatever means necessary, Constitutional or otherwise.

Dan is, again a classic exapmle of many throughout the entire pollitical spectrum who see little fault in those who are doing their personal will, while seizing on every fault (percieved or real) of anyone who opposes their agends. Farmers who used to be considered "conservative" now suck at the public nipple; as do industry leaders who are demonized by Obama.

Everyone does what is right in their own eyes and the Constitution be-damned. This is a recipie for the end of the Republic.

0

Dan Shores 10 months ago

Mark H, interesting theory here. Can we at least agree to be factual in our debate. That's really all I've been asking for. Executive orders have been used literally hundreds of times by every President in recent memory. This is a fact and should not be in dispute. Perhaps you can cite some historical FACT to support your claim that this nation was founded on Judeo/ Christian philosophy and when this was ever a Christian nation. The first amendment seems pretty clear to me. The first amendment prohibits the establishment of religion, perhaps you can cite the amendment that prohibits executive orders. You're right I wasn't paying much attention in Junior High School or High School for that matter, After all, it was the late sixties and there were mini skirts and all and I was very distracted. If you recall the state of the economy during the near collapse of the auto industry, there was little if any chance that any bank would have funded a purchase of one of the auto companies. They were in deed bloated because of excessive demands by the UAW, but a collapse would have clearly spelled economic disaster for the entire country. I don't have an opinion about he President dining royally with the President of France. All Presidents have lived as if they were royalty, so what, I don't care. Agree with you as to farmers. You can throw big oil in there too, and big pharma. Your last comment is simply your opinion and that's fine with me. I agree that there is abuse of the food stamp program but it's going to happen and it doesn't mean that all should suffer because of the behavior of a few. Did you get chance to look at my questionnaire? I think you would fall in the Libertarian camp or maybe an anarchist. By the way all of the statements in my questionnaire were either part of the republican party platform in 2012, or statements made by republican members of congress or by Fox News hosts or right wing talk radio hosts. As whacky as the statements my seem, or not maybe to some of you, I didn't make any of them up. Thanks for the invite Kevin. I don't drink alcohol or smoke for that matter and I prefer the company of my fellow athlete's and politically like minded individuals. But you all have a good time, maybe you can come up with some new conspiracy theories about how the country is being run into the ground and the collapse of our Christian nation and what to do with all those lazy poor people. Have fun!

0

Pat West 10 months ago

Kevin, Not to nit pick, but you realizes the God of the Christian faith, and Allah, and the God of the Jewish faith are the SAME GOD. It is how God is worshiped that differs, not WHO. Please learn about your religion before spouting off how we worship a "Christian" God. Come on people, learn about you own beliefs, and where the come from. People have been fighting for 4000 years over How to worship, not Who to worship.

So "In god we trust" is "In Allah we trust" same guy, or whatever God is to you.

0

mark hartless 10 months ago

"Executive orders have been used literally hundreds of times by every President in recent memory." Doesn't make it Constitutional. Even after what I have just said Dan can not resist the urge to excuse current wrongs because of past wrongs.

I am indeed a libertarian and I believe that this country was designed to run as close to anarchy as possible. Only then can men enjoy the fruits of their labor yet feel protected enough (just barely enough) to make long term commitments.When we strayt as far as we have currently toward socialism, many otherwise smart, productive people choose to sit it out rather than have the fruits of their labor confiscated. Inject an amoral aspect into this equation and plunder becomes the preferred way to survive.

Dan,

I would strongly suggest you consider reading Bastiat's book "The Law".

The original intent of the law was to protect men from plunder and little more. Instead, as Bastiat wrote, the law has becom,e the very INSTRUMENT of the plunder it was designed to protect against.

Pat is, of course, exactly right. However, despite the similarities between the two faiths Muslim and Christian) there are some major theological differences. Islam denies that God is a Trinity and consider this division of God's Oneness to be a grave sin (Shirk). Muslims see Jesus as the last prophet sent to the Children of Israel and the Messiah (Masih) miraculously born of the Virgin Mary (Maryam), but do not believe that he is the Son of God or divine. The divisions can be traced back to Abraham and can be attributed to his disobedience to God's specific instruction and his doubting God's promises (covenant) with him.

0

Dan Shores 10 months ago

Mark, thanks for the reading suggestion. I think it's fine that you are libertarian/anarchist. Now your posts make sense and good for you. I'm pretty sure executive orders are constitutional but I am certainly no constitutional scholar. Maybe you can find some reference in the constitution.Thanks Pat. Finally some help. Where have you been.

0

Dan Shores 10 months ago

Joe N., just for the record, article 88 of the uniform code of military justice prohibits commissioned officers from speaking or writing "contemptuous words" against the President, vice president, congress, the secretary of defense, the secretary of a military department, the secretary of transportation or the governor or legislature of any state, territory, commonwealth or possession in which he is on duty or present. DOD directive 1344.10 extends this prohibition to all active duty personnel, including enlisted. So if you are active duty I'd be a little careful here. Your free speech rights do not extend to active duty personnel.

0

mark hartless 10 months ago

Oh be careful little lips what you say; or Obama might just haul your ass away.

You best think twice before you criticize; or Obama might just visit you with spies.

Even if it is in jest, he might send the IRS; so be careful little lips what you say..

Don't you ever say exactly what you think; or Obama might just slap you in the "klink".

Keep your notions to your self, or it might effect your health.

Sit down and shut your mouth or your life is headin' south.

All hail O-BA-MA... O-BA-MA... O-BA-MA !!! Long live the King !!!

0

Kevin Nerney 10 months ago

They call it military intelligence for a reason. I think that's an oxymoron myself, but he knows how to tow the party line and this is the perfect example of political correctness. Can't think for yourself, don't use common sense, but make sure you adapt, adjust and overcome. Probably the main reason he didn't re-up.

0

Chris Hadlock 10 months ago

Your mom is fat! Oh Yeah, your mom wears cowboy boots. Take that back or my dad will beat up your dad.

Until we can return to a society that actually listens to one another instead of everyone just beating their chest and bellowing like a big gorilla, we will continue to worsen the divide. It is time for common sense to prevail and for our elected officials to find compromise solutions. They exist if anyone will listen. Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.