james Patterson

james Patterson 19 hours, 40 minutes ago on Ken Collins: A scary scenario

So when a mass murderer eats their victims, imprisons young women for their pleasure, bombs a Fed building, etc they should be considered ideological terrorist, not criminals. A lot of what ISIS does (beheading, etc) is to get a reaction from the West….and they get it. If reports are to be believed, most new recruits do not practise Islam and are not there for the Jihad. They are poor, disenfranchised, angry youth that have found a way to channel their anger, make a living, and feel important. They could give two twits about Islam. By using any degrading term with the term Islamic is to feed into what ISIS wants- which is to bankrupt the West by creating a never ending, never winable war. Are there a few "true believers" in ISIS…of course. Are they using the religion for political and economic gain…you bet they are. Are they turning the West against the ME…unfortunately yes. That doesn't make them soldiers or warriors, it makes them criminals. On another note, are implied insults really necessary? Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I have my head in the sand, I'm ignorant or any other implication you may have wanted to make. It simply means I see the world in a different light than you do. Maybe the reality lies somewhere between our views.

0

james Patterson 2 days, 18 hours ago on Ken Collins: A scary scenario

I heard something by a retired gerneral (sorry, don't remember name) that addresses the term and why it is to be avoided. By using the term Islamic, you are validity that it is a religious war against the West, thus they are warriors. This is an insult to true soldiers/warriors and those that practise the true Islamic faith. They are criminals and should be treated as such and not given the honored status of soldiers/warriors. Something to think about.

0

james Patterson 2 days, 19 hours ago on Ken Collins: A scary scenario

I try to stay out of these discussions, but you continue to use the safety of a gun range as a comparison to concerts and now a dance club in an attempt to show that when everyone has guns, the area is safer. You are very smart and must know that these comparisons are absurd. You have not taken into account the purpose of the gathering, the demographics of the folks attending the gathering, the presence of (or lack of) alcohol/substances, the motivations of those at the gathering, and on and on. Pls make you case on valid grounds instead of abusrd comparisons. (btw-I am a gun owner and long time hunter-and also a progressive)

0

james Patterson 2 weeks, 2 days ago on Jane Dougherty: Wear Orange to end gun violence

When you state violent crimes against honest citizens you are making that judgement. You are simply pulling the switch with a jury. In your mind you are determining who is an honest citizen and who is not. Juries are fooled, some laws are unjust, some arrest are erroneous. Your black and white view of criminality is indeed you passing judgement whether you want to admit it or not.

0

james Patterson 2 weeks, 3 days ago on Jane Dougherty: Wear Orange to end gun violence

And you can seperate the "good" from the "evil"? You can determine which laws are just and which aren't? "Honest" from "dishonest"? Justified from not justified? If you can, you are a much better man than I am or ever can dream of being. I think the Christian Jesus was the only one I know of that was capable of such judgements, and even with him I'm not so sure.

0

james Patterson 1 month, 3 weeks ago on U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet: Making air travel more family friendly

I would challenge the concept of a free market when it comes to services/goods that are required for life. Food, health care, energy, educaton, wages, clean environment. These markets aren't "free" because those needing the services/goods really don't have a viable option. Let's call it the captive audience syndrome instead of monopoly. Free markets have no conscience. No care for consequences, intended or otherwise, that they can't be held legally liable for. They are concerned with demand, supply and profit. Not a real good basis for forming a viable country/world, especially when the demand is often created to meet a supply. I guess I started this to point that our present economic modal does not work and we need to look at other options and not get hung up on old divisions and labels. Profit is important, but there are other priorities that must come before it. I think Colorado is leading the way in this new paradigm. First on the MJ issue and soon in the Health Care arena. With the wealth of the world today and the ability to transport goods/services around the world, there is no reason for the suffering we see, whether in the US or any other place. There is enough……...

0

james Patterson 1 month, 3 weeks ago on U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet: Making air travel more family friendly

So what you're saying is the free market capitalism modal does not apply to airports…….or railroads…….or?? for some strange reason but applies as the best possible economic modal for things such as health care services, food production/distribution, energy distribution, and establishment of wages? Just asking.

0

james Patterson 1 month, 3 weeks ago on U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet: Making air travel more family friendly

And this fits into the small government, free market, capitalism rationale how? Of course these are just 2 examples of how "business" charges taxpayers to increase their profits. I'm not saying it is necessarily bad or good, just seems inconsistent. In fact, doesn't it reek of democratic socialism?

0

james Patterson 1 month, 3 weeks ago on U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet: Making air travel more family friendly

I'm not real smart and definitely not schooled in the world of business and finance. That being said, I've always wondered why the government at any level is involved in building airports, providing air traffic control or any other aspect of a private business. Seems to me airlines should be accountable for all aspects of air travel and charge accordingly-you know-that free market thing. According to a lot of folks, they (private business) could do it better because the government can't do anything better than private business. The same goes for pro sports stadiums. Why are they built with tax monies? The answer may be obvious and I may simply be showing my ignorance, but would someone pls let me in on the "secret".

0

james Patterson 1 month, 4 weeks ago on City Council to make final decision on pot shop move Tuesday

Their opinion should matter only if the business has a demonstrable negative impact on the adjacent business and violates zoning laws. A pot shop has no odor, no overt advertising or any other aspect that would impact an adjacent business. Considering it's next to a "family burger business" that lines it's aisles with cases of beer, hard ale, etc and has a full bar in the view of any customer entering, I would call the whole thing a wash and let the pot shop survive (or not) on it's own merits. You know, that capitalism thing.

0

Prev