Comments on: Rick Wagner acts as political bomb thrower

By: gfbyers

gfbyers — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:07:32 +0000

Hey folks, the Rick Wagner column is an op-ed just like Henrietta’s and many other guest writers that the Sentinel features each week. I have found them to be fairly balanced…….a couple of liberal columns one day and a couple of columns with a conservative viewpoint the next. As far as the editorials, which are the opinions of the paper, they seem to portray both sides of the political spectrum.
The Daily Sentinel is the only paper I have found that reports news from the whole western slope and does stay on top of what the energy business is up to, both the good and the bad. They have my vote of confidence. And yes, this is just my OPINION.

By: Curmudgeon

Curmudgeon — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:49:31 +0000

Mike, you nailed it shut on that one. Mr. Wagner now looks reserved, civil, and level-headed. Great. Now I gotta go look out my window and see if pigs are soaring past my window.

By: MikeHunt

MikeHunt — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:41:47 +0000

My gawd, weren’t we talking about “Freaky Stalkers” a few days ago? You, over there, answer my question, or I’ll ask it fifty more times!!! Or I’ll hound you until my dying day!!

What is this this place, an electronic courtroom or just some bad drama involving a few who otherwise have no obvious sense of purpose or anything to contribute?

Sorta makes Rick Wagner appear to be a civil person

By: Willis_Leon_Johnson

Willis_Leon_Johnson — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:28:00 +0000

In other word Mr Laitres, if you ignore the question you won’t have to answer it and nobody will know what your qualifications to bad mouth other peoples intelligence are?

So, one more time:

Mr. Laitres, I keep asking the question of you, and you keep not answering.
What institutions of higher learning have you attended, and what specific degrees have you earned that allows you to feel smarter than anybody else?
And, since you have been known to be less than honest in your posts, I require names and dates for verification.
By your continued refusal to answer I can only surmise that you are a self taught individual that is incapable honest, intelligent conversation and need to rely on childish attempts at character assassination and belittling others to make yourself seem more intelligent than you actually are.
If facts that prove your positions false arise, you feel perfectly within your rights to discount any facts that you choose to not believe, then base your arguments on your self imposed ignorance of those facts.

You can choose to answer the question, or stop pretending that you have special knowledge that magically makes you smarter than everybody that disagrees with you.

Your choice.

By: RLaitres

RLaitres — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:19:59 +0000

bullishfrog: To be honest yes, and definitely by a much greater percentage. And, quite honestly, I not infrequentl question my own qualification. Have I studied the issues enough, and do I really understand them? On what basis am I, or have I decided in the past? When casting a vote for a public official, be that for one at the national, state or local level am I placing my own wants and needs ahead of those of the entire entire group? Is the individual for whom I would cast a ballot (regardless of party affiliaton) “qualified” to serve; i.e. is he/she capable of thinking and dealing with the issues at the level to which he/she aspires?

By: bullishfrog

bullishfrog — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:00:10 +0000

RL,do you think that more than 0.01% of the population is qualified to vote?

By: RLaitres

RLaitres — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:46:27 +0000

toaaronuu: The best way to handle such posts and posters is to totally ignore them, not even acknowledging them on boards. That has been my experience, both in person and on boards. The subject may get irritated at times but, after a while they go away.

By: RLaitres

RLaitres — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:42:16 +0000

Bullishfrog: Wikepedia, like any reference book, can only handle abrevaiated forms. Political liberalism requires far more, including its constructive components. In order to acquire that, it is necessary to study the history of political thought, not only that concept but also others such that it can be placed in perspective. I do not view reference books, be they dictionaries or encyclopedias as of no worth. They are quite valuable. However, that being said, I doubt that one would have much faith in one calling himself a doctor if all he had studied was a medical dictionary or even Gray’s Anatomy. The same thing applies to all subject matters.

By: toaaronuu

toaaronuu — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:32:25 +0000

LOL, Check out post #7 and compare to post #13! Sorry to go off topic, but what a sweet example of the pot calling the kettle black…

By: bullishfrog

bullishfrog — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:28:29 +0000

Since Mr. Laitres keeps telling folks that they don’t know the definition of certain political terms, and since it appears that he expects everyone to know these definitions before making intelligent comments, I thought I would provide the definition of liberalism as defined in Wikepedia:

“Within liberalism, there are two major currents of thought. which often compete over the use of the term “liberal” and have been known to clash on many issues, as they differ on their understanding of what constitutes freedom. Classical liberals, believe that the only real freedom is freedom from coercion.[4] As a result they see state intervention in the economy as a coercive power that restricts the economic freedom of individuals and favor laissez-faire economic policy. They oppose the welfare state.[5] Social liberals argue that governments must take an active role in promoting the freedom of citizens. They believe that real freedom can only exist when citizens are healthy, educated, and free from dire poverty. They generally favor the right to an education, the right to health care, and the right to a living wage. Some also favor laws against discrimination in housing and employment, laws against pollution of the environment, and the provision of welfare, including unemployment benefit and housing for the homeless, all supported by progressive taxation.[4]”