en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/1183686 Comments by RockDog223 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_28867524/slighted-by-puc-staff-boulder-offers-be-more#IDComment996518719 that's a tough one. I admit I probably don't have all the facts. I'd start with studying the problem. With the first question being is there a problem at all? Every town Boulder's size has homeless. Homelessness is a national issue. What can you really do about it on the local level? It's like the question of traffic. Is there really a traffic problem in Boulder? I guess you might think so unless you've ever lived anywhere else. But if you have lived in any other metro area you'd know that it's easy to get around Boulder. Traffic in and out of Fort Collins is way worse during rush hour. So is Colorado Springs. After that I'd want to know who the homeless are. What percentage are actually just passing through as all their signs say and what percentage are indigenous to boulder. Then I'd want to know how many are truly mentally ill and how many are 'lifestyle' homeless. Then I'd need to research what the legal options really are. What's legal to do with homeless people. If you give them shelter can you make them work? Can we actually just kick them out of town? Those are tricky legal questions. I don't know the answers to them. In the end I think that we may not have much more of a 'homeless problem' in Boulder any more than any other metro area in the US. My aunt lives outside of Phoenix and I can tell you that the homeless problem there is way worse than here. Been to Vegas lately? The homeless there are downright scary. Thu, 24 Sep 2015 16:11:18 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_28867524/slighted-by-puc-staff-boulder-offers-be-more#IDComment996518719 http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/ci_28860445/editorial-boulder-campaign-messages-remember#IDComment996506486 Can anyone tell me if we have even one candidate for city council that is anti muni, anti right sizing, and anti affordable housing? All the things that make Boulder more expensive and annoying for those of us that already live here. How about a candidate that is pro recreational access to open space? Someone that isn't in the pocket of the Audubon society and doesn't want to see all our open space turned into bird sanctuaries? How about a candidate that wants to prioritize fixing potholes and shoveling snow over changing the world from Boulder out? Tell me who they are. They have my vote. Thu, 24 Sep 2015 14:14:44 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/ci_28860445/editorial-boulder-campaign-messages-remember#IDComment996506486 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_28817422/merrill-glustrom-addicted-cars#IDComment996506426 Can anyone tell me if we have even one candidate for city council that is anti muni, anti right sizing, and anti affordable housing? All the things that make Boulder more expensive and annoying for those of us that already live here. How about a candidate that is pro recreational access to open space? Someone that isn't in the pocket of the Audubon society and doesn't want to see all our open space turned into bird sanctuaries? How about a candidate that wants to prioritize fixing potholes and shoveling snow over changing the world from Boulder out? Tell me who they are. They have my vote. Thu, 24 Sep 2015 14:14:08 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_28817422/merrill-glustrom-addicted-cars#IDComment996506426 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_28867524/slighted-by-puc-staff-boulder-offers-be-more#IDComment996505712 Can anyone tell me if we have even one candidate for city council that is anti muni, anti right sizing. pro recreational access to open space, and wants to prioritize fixing potholes and shoveling snow over changing the world from Boulder out? Tell me who they are. They have my vote. Thu, 24 Sep 2015 14:06:53 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_28867524/slighted-by-puc-staff-boulder-offers-be-more#IDComment996505712 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_28867524/slighted-by-puc-staff-boulder-offers-be-more#IDComment996504360 As a long time lurker on this Daily Camera opinion forum I have to say that in my experience the ONLY topic that almost every single poster on here is in agreement on is that the MUNI is a bad idea. If this thing doesn't end soon we really should question how representative our government is. I mean Patrick Murphy and I agree on this issue. Unbelievable. Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:54:46 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_28867524/slighted-by-puc-staff-boulder-offers-be-more#IDComment996504360 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_28817422/merrill-glustrom-addicted-cars#IDComment995344310 Kill 'right sizing'!!! End the muni debacle!! Vote yes on 300 and 301. Let's send this city council a message. Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:26:02 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_28817422/merrill-glustrom-addicted-cars#IDComment995344310 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_28817429/sarah-massey-warren-argue-fact-not-fiction#IDComment995343825 Yes on 300 and 301...!!! Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:21:25 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_28817429/sarah-massey-warren-argue-fact-not-fiction#IDComment995343825 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_28817420/stacey-arnett-here-come-cu-casualties#IDComment995343513 What a silly letter. What's the point? Should we now ban universities? Yes, students party. Guess what Stacey, they always have and always will. You live on the hill. Okay, for how long? If you just moved there then you really have no justification for this letter. Don't move 200 yards from a University and expect anything else. If you've lived there for many years then you know that the hill has always been this way. I moved here in '82 and my first house was right on University hill. There was a riot within 2 weeks of me moving to Boulder. If anything it's gotten better since we haven't had a riot in a decade. Were you ever young Stacey? If so you may remember that when you were things like world affairs didn't seem that important. Most of those kids that live near you could care less about Syrian refugees. But they will when they're older. That's how it works. Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:18:28 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_28817420/stacey-arnett-here-come-cu-casualties#IDComment995343513 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_28807760/heath-harmon-cautious-approach-legal-weed-danger#IDComment995040725 Mr. Harmon, The citizens of Colorado voted for marijuana to be regulated just like alcohol. Instead is being regulated more strictly than any other legal item that doesn't require a prescription has ever been regulated as far as I know. That issue needs to be addressed. But the bigger issue that needs to be addressed in Boulder is the city council's absolute refusal over the course of many years to even consider the wishes of the electorate. The open space master plan, right sizing and the muni disaster are the most obvious examples. This has to stop. We need a city council that works for the people of Boulder, not just for the minority cabal that got them elected. Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:01:56 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_28807760/heath-harmon-cautious-approach-legal-weed-danger#IDComment995040725 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_28796619/tom-alexander-socratic-dialogue-right-sizing#IDComment994785232 Can we end right sizing and the muni debacle in one fell blow in this year's elections? Are there any other candidates available? Or are we stuck with the same old same old? Sat, 12 Sep 2015 14:37:12 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_28796619/tom-alexander-socratic-dialogue-right-sizing#IDComment994785232 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_28793424/barbara-bennett-surprised-by-opposition-safer-biking-routes#IDComment994784439 I agree with Boulderliberty. It seems logical to assume that this will increase CO2 emissions in Boulder. Idling cars pollute. And people that go out of their way to avoid Folsom (which I have done several times since this started) are driving further and polluting more. I'm not convinced that any significant increase in people choosing to bike instead of drive will occur because of this plan. She says she's surprised at the opposition to safer biking routes. I don't see any opposition to safer biking routes in this. I see opposition to increased traffic and pollution. I'm all for safer biking routes in the city. I would support a north/south bike path if it could be done. Sat, 12 Sep 2015 14:27:19 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_28793424/barbara-bennett-surprised-by-opposition-safer-biking-routes#IDComment994784439 http://www.dailycamera.com/columnists/ci_28769492/leonard-pitts-jr-religious-liberty-looks-lot-like#IDComment994186781 Maybe that's what Kim Davis should have done. Respectfully live and let live and transfer to another department. Tue, 8 Sep 2015 18:44:17 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/columnists/ci_28769492/leonard-pitts-jr-religious-liberty-looks-lot-like#IDComment994186781 http://www.dailycamera.com/columnists/ci_28769492/leonard-pitts-jr-religious-liberty-looks-lot-like#IDComment994169188 So indirectly you admit that Kim Davis was 'coercing' her beliefs on others. Interesting. I like Quakerism all of a sudden. Christianity should have a similar proviso. Tue, 8 Sep 2015 16:04:25 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/columnists/ci_28769492/leonard-pitts-jr-religious-liberty-looks-lot-like#IDComment994169188 http://www.dailycamera.com/columnists/ci_28769492/leonard-pitts-jr-religious-liberty-looks-lot-like#IDComment994167651 My friend, marriage itself is a contrived institution. Humans invented it. All human civilization all over the planet in all historical eras practiced some form of marriage. You say you're not an elite but somehow still think that your definition of marriage is the only legitimate one. So I guess all the Hindu marriages that have ever occurred in human history were not legitimate? You actually presume to claim marriage for Christianity. How arrogant. And how unbelievably elitist for someone who’s notanelite. I personally believe that marriage is a purely cultural institution and should not be regulated or defined by the government in any way. I think the government should be concerned ONLY with civil unions. Between all relevant demographics. Straight or gay as far the government is concerned you would be civilly united with all the responsibilities, rights, benefits and protections that affords. Then if the two people want to they can be culturally married. It should be irrelevant to the government whether the couple is culturally married or not. It's an easy fix. Simply take the word marriage out of all government legislation on the subject. For those who fear polygamy and bestiality simply write the law so as to be clear: "The US government recognizes the civil union between any two (2), consenting HUMANS of legal age." Not too much left for interpretation there. If the 2nd amendment was so clear we would have one less thing to argue about. Christians will never go for it though. Because it puts them on equal footing with gays in the eyes of the government. I have news for you notanelite…Christians want to be elite. They think they are. You prove that when you keep reminding everyone that it was Christians that founded this country. And that we’re based on Christian values, and marriage is a Christian institution. All of which is at least debatable historically and frankly not relevant now. You want us to live under a government controlled by Christians and based on Christian doctrine. I don’t. Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:51:54 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/columnists/ci_28769492/leonard-pitts-jr-religious-liberty-looks-lot-like#IDComment994167651 http://www.dailycamera.com/columnists/ci_28769492/leonard-pitts-jr-religious-liberty-looks-lot-like#IDComment994159371 All the religious right has to offer for an argument in this issue is in the past: 3000 year old scripture; the early history of the Americas and it's founders, etc. Honestly, who the hell cares in 2015 how things were 300 or 3000 years ago? I'll tell you who...less and less people every generation. That's just math. I hope the religious right is enjoying this era. It may be one of the last that their demographic is large enough to have any impact whatsoever on public policy. It's time to live in the present. In this present era gay people do not pose a threat to society. They don't steal or murder statistically any more than any other demographic, including practicing Christians. In fact partnered gays cheat on their partners or spouses less than heterosexuals. And their marriages have a slightly higher success rate than heteros. All that being said what civil reason can we have today to deny them ANY right or privilege we enjoy? There has to be a better reason than ancient history or a (probably) non existent God to deny them any right heteros enjoy. Many of us cannot use God or His scriptures as justification for discrimination because we don't believe or are not sure He exists. That's our moral position. I could not in good conscience take the religious side in this because I believe that their basic premise is flawed: Namely that there is a God. And that homosexuality is a sin. If you take God out of the equation the situation is obvious. There is no legal, civil or moral reason to discriminate against gays. Tue, 8 Sep 2015 14:38:57 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/columnists/ci_28769492/leonard-pitts-jr-religious-liberty-looks-lot-like#IDComment994159371 http://www.dailycamera.com/columnists/ci_28769492/leonard-pitts-jr-religious-liberty-looks-lot-like#IDComment994014861 V_caine, I want to ask you a question I asked Free earlier in this thread. Are you a down the line conservative? Are you also a gun rights supporter? Just curious because I was wondering if you are would you object to a Quaker government official refusing to issue gun permits in Pennsylvania on the grounds of a religious commitment to pacifism? Or would you just say he's in the wrong job? I personally don't think Mrs. Davis should have been jailed. But if she cannot perform her job she should have been fired. Or transferred. My understanding is that she was not open to a transfer and used her power to effectively shut down her office to make a political point. You might think it's more a moral point than just a political point, but no, you'd be wrong. It's just a political point. For that you go to jail. Mon, 7 Sep 2015 18:20:00 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/columnists/ci_28769492/leonard-pitts-jr-religious-liberty-looks-lot-like#IDComment994014861 http://www.dailycamera.com/columnists/ci_28769492/leonard-pitts-jr-religious-liberty-looks-lot-like#IDComment994010646 You must be joking V_caine. Those kind of itemized bad guy lists are so stupid. Anyone who wants to take 5 minutes to compile a list of bad guy republicans or bad guy right wing religious leaders could do it. So what? Every group has a long list of people that are corrupt or criminal. Lot's of anti gay Christians owe back taxes. Lots of Catholic priests abused young boys. There is corruption galore in every Republican administration just as admittedly there is in every Democratic administration. If you don't know that you really are naive. You have to do better than that. It's a waste of bandwidth. Keep to the issue at hand. Why Kim Davis is in jail has nothing to do with the first amendment. She is free to hold an anti gay sign out in front of the courthouse with perfect impunity. That is her 1st amendment right. Her first amendment rights give her no authority to deny rights to another person. The people queuing up for marriage licenses were legally entitled to those licenses. There is no debate about that. She denied them their rights. Federal law trumps state law. The Civil War decided that. But it doesn't matter because this issue is simpler than that. She was wrong. Being gay is not a crime. Gay people do not commit more crimes per capita than any other group. There is no civil reason why they should be denied ANY right or privilege that any other group enjoys. Your side wants them to be denied marriage because you consider homosexuality a sin. That's not good enough. Your bigotry based on obscure ancient text is just not good enough anymore. More and more of us simply don't care. We want to live in a secular world. You have to have a better reason to discriminate against someone in a secular world. Ancient biases don't count. Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:43:32 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/columnists/ci_28769492/leonard-pitts-jr-religious-liberty-looks-lot-like#IDComment994010646 http://www.dailycamera.com/columnists/ci_28769492/leonard-pitts-jr-religious-liberty-looks-lot-like#IDComment994007547 A question for you Free... Are you a down the line conservative? Are you also a gun rights supporter? Just curious because I was wondering if you are would you object to a Quaker government official refusing to issue gun permits in Pennsylvania on the grounds of a religious commitment to pacifism? Or would you just say he's in the wrong job? I personally don't think Mrs. Davis should have been jailed. But if she cannot perform her job she should have been fired. Or transferred. My understanding is that she was not open to a transfer and used her power to make a political point. You might think it's more a moral point than just a political point, but no, you'd be wrong. It's just a political point. For that you go to jail. Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:16:43 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/columnists/ci_28769492/leonard-pitts-jr-religious-liberty-looks-lot-like#IDComment994007547 http://www.dailycamera.com/columnists/ci_28769492/leonard-pitts-jr-religious-liberty-looks-lot-like#IDComment994006088 Free, it's absolute religious arrogance for you to claim that marriage is 2000 years old. You're implying that marriage was invented by Christians. You don't think marriage existed before Christ? Before judaism? Marriage is as old as humanity. And it exists independently of Christianity. Fiji Islanders have been marrying for 15,000 years. The Sumerians married in 5000 BC. The Chinese have a system of marriage that has existed long before and independently of Christianity. No government owns marriage, nor can any religion claim it. I agree that no government should regulate marriage. I don't think the government should be involved with marriage whatsoever. I think the government should be concerned only with civil unions. For all citizens. Straight or gay. Marriage is a cultural institution and should be independent of government civil unions. But Christians don't like that because it makes them equal with gays in the eyes of the government. Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:03:15 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/columnists/ci_28769492/leonard-pitts-jr-religious-liberty-looks-lot-like#IDComment994006088 http://www.dailycamera.com/columnists/ci_28769492/leonard-pitts-jr-religious-liberty-looks-lot-like#IDComment994000377 Free, I don't understand your logic. It's the religious right that is stating all over the place, on TV, the news, internet, etc, that Mrs. Davis IS being jailed for practicing her religious beliefs. You can't have it both ways. If she's doing what she's doing because of a religious motivation then she Is at the same time trying to make others live by her religious beliefs. This is a simple issue. We either live in a secular state or not. Personally I'm for a secular state. This does not prohibit religious freedom. Religious people are free to worship and live their private lives in any legal manner they see fit. If you don't think gay people should be able to marry, then don't marry one. Encourage your relatives and friends to not be gay and marry a gay person. Do anything you can within your private sphere of influence to oppose gay marriage. Just keep it out of the public domain. It's an easy concept. Mon, 7 Sep 2015 16:12:10 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/columnists/ci_28769492/leonard-pitts-jr-religious-liberty-looks-lot-like#IDComment994000377