Weld county leading the charge for a new state (Greeley: homes, schools)

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Please tell me, my friend from NYC, what is your knowledge base regarding Weld County, CO and your interest in this issue.

Quantifying my knowledge base on Weld Co is totally subjective. So would you be the judge, or another one, or another one?

My interest is that I am considering moving to Colorado later. So this issue interests me greatly.

Besides, aren't the rules of the forum to discuss the issue at hand, rather than the posters?

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

I think you know that was not a literal statement. I recently ran for our HOA board. The election was a tie. After the runoff I told people, "I got whopped". No one whopped me. It's an old cliche.

Of course I know you can't take Jazzlover to the woodshed, per se. I know exactly what you said.

It is rather the attitude that your statement represents -- intolerance, even invocation of violence against someone's 1st Amendment right, pretty much. And no, Goodwin's Law does not override the Constitution.

More importantly (which is really my main concern) -- is your attitude shared by other Metro residents?

[Miss Hepburn]

Well, well I just heard, bef 5 am, 4 counties voted to vacate and 6 voted to stay being CO!

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Quantifying my knowledge base on Weld Co is totally subjective. So would you be the judge, or another one, or another one?

My interest is that I am considering moving to Colorado later. So this issue interests me greatly.

Besides, aren't the rules of the forum to discuss the issue at hand, rather than the posters?

This is another post I'd probably be better off ignoring, but. . .

I did find it interesting that someone from NYC had such an interest in an election in CO. Even if the outcome had been overwhelmingly in favor of secession, the likelihood of the state of North Colorado ever forming was slim to none. As for the bold statement, see below. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Originally Posted by Henry10

Of course I know you can't take Jazzlover to the woodshed, per se. I know exactly what you said.

It is rather the attitude that your statement represents -- intolerance, even invocation of violence against someone's 1st Amendment right, pretty much. And no, Goodwin's Law does not override the Constitution.

More importantly (which is really my main concern) -- is your attitude shared by other Metro residents?

I would think that an attitude that someone who had the audacity to bring Hitler into a political discussion should be "taken to the woodshed" is probably shared by a lot of people. Do note that the PP didn't say what should be done to him in the woodshed. Maybe he'd be asked to stack wood! Invoking the first amendment (free speech) to such outrageous talk overlooks the corollary to that: free speech is not without consequences. We have the right to disagree with someone who invokes Hitler in reference to his opponents.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

Is that any different from Bloomberg and company meddling in Colorado politics? I am opposed to any outsiders trying to impose their own ideological slant on the state. If they want to change things, come here and live to earn a vote.

Money contributed by NRA members in Colorado go to national NRA political movements. Of course, you only want it your way. And, we live in the UNITED States.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Of course I know you can't take Jazzlover to the woodshed, per se. I know exactly what you said.

It is rather the attitude that your statement represents -- intolerance, even invocation of violence against someone's 1st Amendment right, pretty much. And no, Goodwin's Law does not override the Constitution.

More importantly (which is really my main concern) -- is your attitude shared by other Metro residents?

I actually have no problem with people bringing up Hitler in a discussion WHEN IT'S REASONABLE. But implying that most transitions of political power in this country are comparable to Nazi-ism is not reasonable (with the exception of the near extinction of American Indians).

[McGowdog]

Goodwin's Law , that's all it is.

[Linda_d]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

Tough luck.

Power changes have happened in virtually state over the history of this country, albeit due to different types of changes. And well the power should change hands...at least in most cases.

The power shifted from the American Indians to the White man at one point. You probably liked that power change, jazzlover.

In the American south, after the Civil War, the power shifted from slave ownership to a different economic structure.

As rural states have become less rural, the power changes. This has happened at some point in time in virtually every state in the union to one degree or another. It's not unique to Colorado. The politics of NYS changed when the Erie Canal opened the cities in the western part of the state to further development (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany), and again when the power of Niagara Falls was more fully harnessed. In Maryland there's a dissonance between the D.C. suburbs and the rest of even that small state. In Virginia the northern suburbs of D.C. have modified the political landscape, taking the state from red to purple to a shaky blue. In Florida you have "Old Florida" in some regions, and "New Florida" in others.

Things change. Things evolve. The once powerful sometimes become the less powerful, and that is what is happening in Colorado. That's life.

I guess I'll say what you have often implied (if not said outright): if you don't like it, move (and some do -- every cloud has a silver lining).

Very well said!!!

Originally Posted by jazzlover

The analogy may be a bit extreme, but the point remains: Not all change is positive and people who are negatively affected by it and powerless (due to the Tyranny of the Majority, in this case) to stop it certainly have justification to be plenty upset about it--and the current "secessionist" movement (though it will be fruitless) demonstrates that frustration.

As far as "bush league" techniques in debate, having no idea of the rationale behind an opposing point of view (thus being unable to intelligently debate it) is about as bush league as one can get--and Mike and many of his metropolitan counterparts are clueless about the challenges facing rural Coloradans, as well as the crappy treatment those rural Coloradans get from the metropolitan-dominated political process.

People are frustrated because they can't get what they want, is that something new? People who lived in cities and towns were frustrated for decades in the era before 1 man/1 vote because state legislatures dominated by legislators from rural areas continually voted against measures that people in the more populous areas wanted and/or needed.

Now the shoe's on the other foot, and you are whining about it. Tough nuggies, especially since this BS secession crap is little more than a temper tantrum thrown by RWNJs. We've got the same crew here in Upstate NY, all po'd about not being able to trot into Walmart and come out with an AK-47 or because gays and lesbians can get legally married.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

The secession is mostly a TEA party thing, and they don't give a damn about rural Coloradans and their problems, or anyone else's problems. The whole thing is spite work of the anti-gay crowd, gun lobby and TEA activists who just want to make trouble for a Democratic governor and statehouse, i.e., it has nothing to do with the "problems" or "treatment" of rural Coloradans and everything to do with out of state money stirring the pot.

Mike you are wrong about that. There are plenty of rural Coloradans who are not tea-partiers, anti-gay, or gun lovers who are nonetheless fed up with metro-dominated politics in Colorado. In fact, contrary to what the obviously liberal-dominated metro people may think, most rural Coloradans are fiscally conservative, socially moderate types who generally hang around the center point of the political spectrum. That said, they are sick of having all nature of mandates from the metro counties continually shoved down their throat. They are also really sick of the arrogant metro attitude of "Well, if it's good for the Front Range metro counties, then it's good enough for the rest of the state." It's especially grating when many of the Front Rangers espousing that point of view are either so new to the state or so ignorant that they have hardly even set foot in a rural area of Colorado for long enough to know anything about it, or to know what the local residents (not the part-time transient "residents"--most of whom are not even a resident of Colorado under law) think about how Colorado is being managed.

Unlike most metro Coloradans' ignorance of rural Colorado affairs, most rural Colorado residents are fairly well-versed in what is going on in the metro areas. Small wonder--the entire media--TV, print, etc.--in Colorado is entirely dominated by Front Range metro news. Rural Coloradans couldn't escape that deluge of stuff from from the Front Range if they wanted to. Also, most rural Coloradans--sometimes by choice, but usually out of necessity--have to travel to the Front Range metro areas for commerce, interaction with government agencies (I personally can't count how many months of cumulative time that I had to spend on the Front Range just doing that), or for things like specialized medical care. Hell, that was even true of most of the people that I knew in Wyoming when I lived there.

So, are there a lot of folks fed up with Front Range metro political "leadership?" Hell, yes. And the arrogant "go lay down by your dish" response by some metro residents toward rural Colorado frustration shown in this thread will only anger rural Coloradans even more.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Mike you are wrong about that. There are plenty of rural Coloradans who are not tea-partiers, anti-gay, or gun lovers who are nonetheless fed up with metro-dominated politics in Colorado. In fact, contrary to what the obviously liberal-dominated metro people may think, most rural Coloradans are fiscally conservative, socially moderate types who generally hang around the center point of the political spectrum. That said, they are sick of having all nature of mandates from the metro counties continually shoved down their throat. They are also really sick of the arrogant metro attitude of "Well, if it's good for the Front Range metro counties, then it's good enough for the rest of the state." It's especially grating when many of the Front Rangers espousing that point of view are either so new to the state or so ignorant that they have hardly even set foot in a rural area of Colorado for long enough to know anything about it, or to know what the local residents (not the part-time transient "residents"--most of whom are not even a resident of Colorado under law) think about how Colorado is being managed.

Unlike most metro Coloradans' ignorance of rural Colorado affairs, most rural Colorado residents are fairly well-versed in what is going on in the metro areas. Small wonder--the entire media--TV, print, etc.--in Colorado is entirely dominated by Front Range metro news. Rural Coloradans couldn't escape that deluge of stuff from from the Front Range if they wanted to. Also, most rural Coloradans--sometimes by choice, but usually out of necessity--have to travel to the Front Range metro areas for commerce, interaction with government agencies (I personally can't count how many months of cumulative time that I had to spend on the Front Range just doing that), or for things like specialized medical care. Hell, that was even true of most of the people that I knew in Wyoming when I lived there.

So, are there a lot of folks fed up with Front Range metro political "leadership?" Hell, yes. And the arrogant "go lay down by your dish" response by some metro residents toward rural Colorado frustration shown in this thread will only anger rural Coloradans even more.

Isn't it funny how you have no principles when you write stuff like this?

How many times in the past couple of years when people have complained about x, y, or z in Colorado, have you told them that they should leave and move to where they will find things the way they want? So now, why don't you use that same principle? But no, instead, when it's something you side with, the principle is gone and the 85% of urban people in Colorado are supposed to adjust their priorities for the 15% who live in the rural parts of the state. Why now shouldn't those rural folk have to move to where they will find what they want?

Answer: There's no principle involved. It's just you want what you want.