Comments on: Colorado’s Amendment 54 Critic is a Hypocrite

By: Curious Stranger

Curious Stranger — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:21:28 +0000

“Amendment 49’s backed by Ethical Standards Now. They were established one day before the latest reporting period ended, so no financial information is available. The next report is due in a week and a half, so I’ll be sure to check back here then. In the meantime, the registered agent is Michelle Austin (a friend of Jon and yourself Ben? Perhaps she can answer some of the questions you have) who is also the registered agent for Clean Government Colorado. I think it’s safe to assume we’re going to find more anonymous Independence Institute laundered money behind this one.”

Unsurprisingly, I was completely right! (don’t mind the expired session messages, just click the link a second time and it will work, it’s an error on the SoS’s side). All of “Ethical Standards Now”‘s money comes from the Independence Institute. Who gave the Independence Institute the money? Who knows? Jon Caldera doesn’t want us to know whose paying the bills!

By: zombiehunter

zombiehunter — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:42:23 +0000

hahaha. that zombietime.com link is awesome!

By: tljames

tljames — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:06:46 +0000

FYI: the formal language of amendments 47, 49, and 54 can be found in the links on this post.

By: Joba

Joba — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 01:09:13 +0000

People with a Yes position on these have not sent me insulting propaganda. Didnt Pro-Union group, Protect Colorado’s Interest, not think I could look these issues up on the web, read the actual amendments, and think for myself? Its ok to have reasonable free speech, thats your right and I will protect it, but dont tell me flat out lies such as “…these new rules would stop first responders from joining together to advocate for critical measures” That is a very insulting lie. I read the amendments, can any of you union people tell me what wording in Amendment 47,49, and 54 “stop” ANYONE from doing their jobs, gathering in their own interest or advocating for better equipment? I can see how these initiative make union members think more about where their money is going and what benefit they receive. Perhaps Union leaders dont want members to think about that. 49 is stupid anyway since the way around it is for union members to schedule a direct withdraw from their checking account, just like some people do with their mortgage or credit card bills or gym memberships. There is no cost for this for the union members.

By: Peoples Press Collective » Amendment 47, 49, and 54 Lies Just Keep Coming.

Peoples Press Collective » Amendment 47, 49, and 54 Lies Just Keep Coming. — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:10:05 +0000

[...] No on Amendment 47, 49, and 54 scanned mailer, a commentor noted that the officer in the picture wasn’t wearing an “official” police badge. Protect Colorado’s Future dressed him up in an officer-looking costume. What is it that [...]

By: Curious Stranger

Curious Stranger — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:56:00 +0000

Incidentally, is there anyone actively participating in this thread that isn’t in this picture? Wesley, for some reason you didn’t sit for the 2007 picture, so you’re excused.

By: Curious Stranger

Curious Stranger — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:51:25 +0000

And I’ve tried to engage you in intelligent discussion of Amendment 54′s goals – goals which we can’t ascertain because we don’t know who is paying its freight.

I don’t read their website, so I suspect you are more familiar with ProgressNow’s talking points than I am (could you point me towards them?), and I’m definitely not trained by anyone to muddy up the waters – unlike your team of Leadership Program of the Rockies trained professionals.

But, if you insist on talking about results, explain to me why this couldn’t be implemented as a citizen initiated statute, rather than an amendment? Would you support amending the US Constitution for this same purpose (and for all the other Independence Institute sponsored purposes on the ballot as amendments this year)? Isn’t amending Constitutions an explicitly non-conservative position? How does the ostensibly libertarian Independence Institute explain its support for the expansion of government power represented by stacking amendment after amendment on top of each other?

Isn’t this sort of behavior yet another example of the basic ideological corruption at the core of today’s Republican Party? A party that supports “limited government” but expands government to its largest levels in 40 years? A party that claims to support individual rights, but instead actively campaigns to limit individual rights for electoral gain? A party that claims to want to fight corruption, but instead gives us Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff, Ted Stevens and … the best part, Sarah Palin as a reformer? A party that until yesterday, was against Wall Street regulation, but today we’re supposed to accept is suddenly interested in protecting individual investors despite all evidence to the contrary?

By: wesley

wesley — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:22:48 +0000

Alright Matt, I’ve tried to engage you in intelligent discussion over Amendment 54’s results; which has failed. You’re sticking to ProgressNow’s talking points and are apparently incapable of independent thought – that being said, you have been well-trained and are quite adept at question deflection. I asked you three separate times what RESULT of Amendment 54 you disliked; and you’ve dodged my question three separate times. I’ve already wasted too much time on you. Go back to trolling PPC and other blogs like a good little ProgressNow-paid Zombie, because our conversation is over. Goodbye.

By: Curious Stranger

Curious Stranger — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 05:46:20 +0000

I’ve stated that Howie Rich, the man behind Colorado At It’s Best is a real estate tycoon from New York. I would assume that some of the money comes from him, but of course, none of us know where the money comes from – because it’s anonymous. It could come from anywhere. You seem to find anonymous money preferable to money that you know, through disclosure, comes from out of state. It’s interesting that you’re supporting a campaign to hold politicians and contractors accountable for their donations, because to do otherwise would encourage corruption, but you don’t hold the campaign itself to the same standard.

By: tljames

tljames — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 05:26:22 +0000

“I don’t even have a way of telling if the money is from out of state!”

Oh? Haven’t you spent the past week stating that it DID come from out of state?

Consistency, Matt. Please review your ProgressNow talking points so you can stay on-message.