Jump to content
of course you want your nepotistic buddies to stick around. how else would you get those no bid jobs? Mongrel and Stovie have been entrenched long enough,they feel they are above the will of the people, time for some new blood in the Commish office. And the reason most people come here is for recreation and our fairly clean environment. Not to see oil and gas rigs or your equipment tearing up some road to nowhere Freddie boy.
I think Guy is saying that McKnights is the beneficiary of the work that had been done to convert the place to an Irish pub and basically got that done for free. How about at least free food and Guinness for a couple of years for the subs Mr. Shea?
Well, they must have found some Texas Tea at Wolf Mt. since I saw at least 3 - 12' diam 45' long brand spanking new oil tanks going down Lincoln yesterday afternoon.......
Christmas present for Bobby W!!
Typical repubs, "lets just baffle them with BS". Not this time.....
Laugh of the day
How Republicans are being taught to talk about Occupy Wall Street
The Republican Governors Association met this week in Florida to give GOP state executives a chance to rejuvenate, strategize and team-build. But during a plenary session on Wednesday, one question kept coming up: How can Republicans do a better job of talking about Occupy Wall Street?
"I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death," said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist and one of the nation's foremost experts on crafting the perfect political message. "They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."
Luntz offered tips on how Republicans could discuss the grievances of the Occupiers, and help the governors better handle all these new questions from constituents about "income inequality" and "paying your fair share."
Yahoo News sat in on the session, and counted 10 do's and don'ts from Luntz covering how Republicans should fight back by changing the way they discuss the movement.
1. Don't say 'capitalism.'
"I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said. "The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."
2. Don't say that the government 'taxes the rich.' Instead, tell them that the government 'takes from the rich.'
"If you talk about raising taxes on the rich," the public responds favorably, Luntz cautioned. But "if you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no. Taxing, the public will say yes."
3. Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the 'middle class.' Call them 'hardworking taxpayers.'
"They cannot win if the fight is on hardworking taxpayers. We can say we defend the 'middle class' and the public will say, I'm not sure about that. But defending 'hardworking taxpayers' and Republicans have the advantage."
4. Don't talk about 'jobs.' Talk about 'careers.'
"Everyone in this room talks about 'jobs,'" Luntz said. "Watch this."
He then asked everyone to raise their hand if they want a "job." Few hands went up. Then he asked who wants a "career." Almost every hand was raised.
"So why are we talking about jobs?"
5. Don't say 'government spending.' Call it 'waste.'
"It's not about 'government spending.' It's about 'waste.' That's what makes people angry."
Clinical research shows that THC acts as a bronchial dilator, clearing blocked air passageways and allowing free breathing.,  In one study, marijuana, “caused an immediate reversal of exercise-induced asthma and hyperinflation.” Numerous cases of asthma have been treated successfully with both natural and synthetic THC. In one report, a young woman used marijuana with her doctor’s approval. Over the course of several years her attacks were almost completely cured with low doses of inhaled cannabis smoke.
 Grinspoon, “Marijuana and asthma.” The Forbidden Medicine Website, www.rxmarijuana.com
 National Academy of Science, 1982
 “Therapeutic possibilities in cannabinoids,” Editorial, The Lancet, pp. 667-669, March 22, 1975
 Tashkin, Shapiro, Lee, and Harper, “Effects of smoked marijuana in experimentally induced asthma.” American Review of Respiratory Disease, Vol. 112, 1975
Perhaps our ancestors had a valid point indeed
This puts the Republican party in a very tricky position. If Paul's message of peace and liberty continues to gain momentum, but he does not gain the GOP nomination, many Paul supporters will likely write him in or stay at home for the general election. Despite Obama's abysmal approval rating and track record, this could be enough to carry him back into the White House. On the other hand, if Paul were to win the nomination, he has an excellent shot at unseating Obama.
He would garner the support of the GOP base, who is willing to do anything to make sure Obama is a one term President, while also attracting a huge number of independent and Democratic voters who have become disillusioned with the President's policies. In any event, Ron Paul is offering voters a clear-cut alternative to the entrenched neoconservative dogma of more war and less liberty, and the people are starting to wake up to his message.
Of course, Ron Paul recognizes the inherent danger embodied within the USA Patriot Act and stressed that the legislation is unpatriotic and conflicts with American values. He said, "That is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty. We have drifted into a condition that we were warned against because our founders were very clear. They said don't be willing to sacrifice liberty for security."
The exact quote that Paul was referencing comes from Benjamin Franklin who said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Considering the gravity of the Patriot Act and the controversy which surrounds it, one would think that some of the other GOP contenders might be against it. Not exactly. While Jon Huntsmann took a position which was closer to Paul's, saying "I think we have to be very careful in protecting our liberties," the other contenders offered derivations of Gingrich's position that it should be strengthened and expanded.
A considerable portion of the rest of the debate consisted of the GOP Presidential nominees outlining highly antagonistic foreign policy positions. Despite the fact that the American people are clearly sick and tired of the endless wars and fear mongering, various candidates supported engaging Iran militarily, instituting a no-fly zone over Syria, escalating the drone attacks in Pakistan and Somalia, and keeping 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
These positions clashed significantly with Ron Paul, who over and over again has made the case for peace - a stance that the military itself supports, if campaign contributions are any indication. In the third quarter, Ron Paul raised more money from active duty military personnel than all of the other GOP candidates combined. The Republican party, however, does not want to seem to wake up to the fact that the American people and the American military have rejected Neocon foreign policy.
This schism in opinion between peace and more war, could end up costing the GOP the election. Ron Paul is attracting significant support within the GOP itself along with a broad contingent of independents and Democrats who have changed party allegiances in order to vote for him in the primary. Given the neoconservative foreign policy views that are being espoused by the other GOP candidates, it is very likely that Paul's expanding base will not vote for Romney, Gingrich or Cain (the other front-runners) in the general election if they get the GOP nomination.
At least one republican makes sense.
Ron Paul Versus the GOP; Peace Versus Perpetual War
The scene at last night's CNN National Security debate was, at times, surreal. The backdrop for this year's GOP Presidential nomination could not be anymore clear. Do the American people want peace or do they favor Perpetual War, a Police State, and the blatant degradation of civil liberties that goes with it? Most of the GOP field showed a complete disdain for the U.S. Constitution and the principles that this country was founded on.
Then of course there is Ron Paul, who uses the Constitution to frame all of his political positions and has a pristine voting record upholding our founding document. It did not take long for Paul to draw a clear divide between him and his fellow Republicans on Tuesday evening.
The first question of the night had to do with the Patriot Act, which was passed hastily in the wake of 9/11. Newt Gingrich told the American people that he would like to not only extend the Patriot Act, but that "I'd look at strengthening [the Patriot Act] because I think the dangers are literally that great." This is an extremely controversial statement.
According to its original design, the USA Patriot Act should no longer even be around. Many of the provisions were to sunset beginning in December 2005. This of course did not happen. First President Bush in March of 2006, and then Barack Obama in May 2011 extended the legislation, which has been severely criticized due to its undermining of civil liberties.
Wikipedia reports: "Opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner's or the occupant's permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order, and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional."
The Patriot Act strikes at the very core of the 4th Amendment, and any interpretation of it which attempts to mitigate or marginalize this fact, should not be taken seriously. This legislation has laid the foundation for broad and unconstitutional intrusions by the Federal Government into the lives of American citizens.
Fracking-disclosure rule deemed worthless amid trade-secrets loophole
Colorado environment groups and elected officials charged Tuesday that the state's proposed rule requiring oil and gas drillers to disclose fracking chemicals will be worthless unless state regulators close a trade-secrets loophole.
"You might think this draft rule is good enough. It really isn't," Colorado Environmental Coalition director Elise Jones said.
Energy companies since April have voluntarily disclosed chemicals they combine with water and sand when "fracking" underground rock formations to release gas and oil. Those that do so post the information on a FracFocus website.
Gov. John Hickenlooper and industry leaders have discussed making that practice mandatory. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission staffers drafted rules that would require drillers to disclose chemicals in their fracking fluids in a database with public access.
But a loophole would allow companies to hide an unlimited number of chemicals by calling them trade secrets.
Commerce City Mayor pro tem Dom inick Moreno and state Rep. Su Ryden, D-Aurora, joined environment groups Tuesday, saying that while trade secrets are important safeguards for business, letting companies avoid disclosure by invoking trade secrets would defeat the purpose of the rule.
"Our residents deserve to know what chemicals are being used only yards away from their homes," Moreno said.
Wyoming and Texas already require companies to disclose the chemicals they inject.
While full disclosure "is definitely not a silver bullet," it would be "a good foundation to make sure fracking is happening safely," Earthjustice attorney Mike Freeman said. "If they deal with the trade-secrets issue, this will do a lot to improve transparency in Colorado."
It would be "one small step in addressing the much larger impacts of oil and gas extraction," Jones said. "We need to make sure, if we are drilling in this state, that we are doing it without damaging our air and water."
The commission is set to review the draft rule Dec. 5 at a public hearing.
Last login: Monday, February 25, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |