Our Platform for Outlining Colorado’s Future

  Q: If one of your daughters asked you, "Daddy, did God really create the world in 6 days?" What would you say? A: What I believe is that God created the universe, and that the 6 days in the Bible may not be 6 days as we understand it. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth, that is fundamentally true. Now whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible, that I don't presume to know. But one last point--I do believe in evolution. I don't think that is incompatible with Christian faith. Just as I don't think science generally is incompatible with Christian faith. There are those who suggest that if you have a scientific bent of mind, then somehow you should reject religion. And I fundamentally disagree with that. In fact, the more I learn about the world, the more I know about science, the more I'm amazed about the mystery of this planet and this universe. And it strength...

Reasons  to agree: People hate smart kids. Americans are way over-fascinated with calling smart people nerds, and geeks. This is not done so much in other cultures. Background: "I try to avoid an either/or approach to solving the problems of this country. There are questions of individual responsibility and questions of societal responsibility to be dealt with. The best example is an education. I'm going to insist that we've got decent funding, enough teachers, and computers in the classroom, but unless you turn off the television set and  get over a certain anti-intellectualism that I think pervades some low-income communities, our children are not going to achieve ." ~ Meet The Press, NBC News Jul 25, 2004

Reasons  to agree: We should reward good behavior and punish bad behavior .  " Teachers are extraordinarily frustrated about how their performance is assessed. And not just their own performance, but the school's performance generally. So they're teaching to the tests all the time. What I have said is that we should be able to get buy-in from teachers in terms of how to measure progress. Every teacher I think wants to succeed. And if we give them a pathway to professional development, where we're creating master teachers, they are helping with apprenticeships for young new teachers, they are involved in a variety of other activities, that are really adding value to the schools, then we should be able to give them more money for it. But we should only do it if the teachers themselves have some buy-in in terms of how they're measured. They can't be judged simply on standardized tests that don't take into account whether children are prepared before they ge...

Reasons  to agree: Those students in Education departments across the country have had worse ACT, and SAT grades than other college departments. They even have worse grades than Criminal Justice departments (cops). It is sad that cops can know math, geography, history, and science, better than those that we put in charge of teaching our children. We need higher standards for teachers, if we are going to pay them more. I'm not saying every teacher is stupid. If you are a teacher, and you are offended, than you prove my point. You are stupid. The facts are the facts, and if you get mad because of the facts, than you are stupid. I'm from Idaho. I'm not offended when you say bad things about people from Idaho, in general, because I know that you are not talking about me specifically. Of course their are a lot of very smart people who are teachers. I thought about going into teaching. My father, whom I love and respect very much is a teacher. My mother in law is also a very go...

Reasons  to agree: "In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity--it is a prerequisite. And yet, we have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any industrialized nation. And half of the students who begin college never finish. This is a prescription for economic decline.   So tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But every American will need to get more than a high school diploma. And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country. That's why we will provide the support necessary for all young Americans to complete college and meet a new goal: By 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in th...

Reasons  to agree: "While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment. On the other hand, the way capital cases were tried in Illinois at the time was so rife with error, questionable police tactics, racial bias, and shoddy lawyering, that 13 death row inmates had been exonerated" The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 58 Oct 1, 2006

Reasons  to agree: "Obama had a 2002 bill to stop police abuse. Chicago had become infamous for use of torture by police to help frame innocent people. Thirteen innocent men on Death Row were exonerated and released, some of them victims of these tortured confessions. Illinois desperately needed some action to restore confidence in the police. Obama's proposal was to require videotaping of interrogations of suspects in capital cases. When Obama began, the idea of a bill was opposed by police, prosecutors, most of the senate and the governor. The governor was determined not to appear soft on crime, and had promised to veto any proposal for mandatory tapings. By the time Obama finished his work, the police and prosecutors embraced the bill, it passed in the Illinois Senate by a vote of 58-0. The governor took the unusual step of reversing himself to sign it, and Illinois became the first state to require such tapings." ~ The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.145 Oct ...

Reasons  to agree: "I don't want to wake up four years from now and discover that we still have more young black men in prison than in college." ~ Barack Obama, fund-raiser in Harlem, NY, Nov. 29, 2007. "Simply untrue, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. There may be a case for arguing, as some Obama supporters have done, that the total number of black prisoners is slightly higher than the total number of black students. But I can only fact check the comparison the candidate actually made, which was between young black men in prison and in college. Rather than acknowledge the error, the Obama campaign declined to provide statistical support." Source: GovWatch on 2008 Pinocchio Awards for Biggest Fib of 2007 Jan 1, 2008. As GovWatch points out, there are more black men in prison (age 18 to 100 years old) than there are "young    black men" in college. However Obama said there were more young black men in prison than in college, which is f...

Reasons  to agree: Rich people use cocain. Poor people use crack. It is wrong to punish the poor people more.

"Obama will work to ban racial profiling" ~ Campaign booklet, "Blueprint for Change", p. 48-49 Feb 2, 2008 Reasons  to agree: Race should only be considered when it is used to describe a specific suspect in a specific crime and only when used in a manner like other physical descriptions (e.g., hair color, weight, distinguishing marks). This is often referred to as the "be on the lookout" (B.O.L.O.) exception. "If we know that in our criminal justice system, African-Americans and whites, for the same crime, receive--are arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very different rates, receive very different sentences. That is something that we have to talk about. But that's a substantive issue and it has to do with how do we pursue racial justice. If I am president, I will have a civil rights division that is working with local law enforcement so that they are enforcing laws fairly and justly. But I would expect a white president or a w...

Reasons  to agree: "How many times in the last year has this city lost a child at the hands of another child? How many times have our hearts stopped in the middle of the night with the sound of a gunshot or a siren? How many teenagers have we seen hanging around on street corners when they should be sitting in a classroom? How many are sitting in prison when they should be working, or at least looking for a job? How many in this generation are we willing to lose to poverty or violence or addiction? How many?" "Yes, we need more cops on the street. Yes, we need fewer guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Yes, we need more money for our schools. Yes, we need more jobs and more job training and more opportunity in our communities." "But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child--i...

Reasons  to agree: "One of Obama's most poignant missed opportunities was in not using the historic $787 million stimulus package to reorder state and local government's spending priorities. As states and cities continue to spend ceaselessly and without results on education and healthcare, they're crowding out investments in the physical infrastructure that the private sector needs to rebuild the economy. "In the stimulus, of the more than $200 billion that went directly to states and cities, nearly 70% went to education and healthcare spending. Only 24% went to infrastructure spending. "But the states and cities in the most trouble already spend way too much on education and healthcare, pushing taxes up and sending private industry away. They don't spend nearly enough on infrastructure, which attracts the private sector and builds the real economy. "As David Walker, former comptroller general of the US, said at the Regional Plan Association'...

Poor people are usually democrats, because they think they will get more money from the government if they support democrats. Rich people tend to be republicans, because they think they will keep more money if they support other republicans. It has nothing to do with what system people thinks works best, or what type of government works best. It usually has all to do with self interest or greed. Obama openly promised that he would raise taxes on the very rich and give more to the “middle class”. On video tape he said he would "spread the wealth around". Self interest is a bad motivation, because if everyone only acted on self interest, bad things would happen. We need people to act out of what they think will be best for their grandchildren. Republicans would say that Rich people don't want to keep more of their money, they think that this is the cart before the horse. Republicans will say that people who are self reliant, and don't want anything from the government, ...

This is republicans disagreeing with Obama because he is a Democrat, even when he is doing conservative things. This is democrats defending Obama, even if they would have attacked Bush for doing the same thing. The cause is political laziness and the result is issue crossover.  Issue crossover is when you agree with Obama on one thing, and so you tend to give him the benefit of the doubt on other issues. This is only natural, but it can lead to bad policy.  It is like giving Hitler the benefit of the doubt on his policy towards invading his neighbors, because you like his progressive environmental policy (OK you idiots; I am not comparing Hitler to Obama. I am using a good logical debating technique of proving a point with an extreme case).  This means that democrats and republicans need to work with each other when they agree, because the other side has to be right some of the time, no matter how bad they are. And this also requires democrats and republicans to oppose people from thei...

When I say that someone is motivated by liberal guilt towards the environment, I mean it as a bad thing. I'm talking about the guilt that knows we have been bad to the environment in the past, and assumes that everything that we do to alter the environment is going to harm it. It assumes it is impossible for mankind to help the environment, even if evidence contrary to their guilt, suggest that an action might increase biodiversity, or the quantity of animal or plant life.

This is typified by people who attack people from the other party for doing something, but defend someone from their own party for doing the same thing. It often comes down to making excuses for people that you agree with 90% of the time. It is OK to not agree with everything someone has said or done, but still support them. But at some point you are a total idiot if you make a big deal supporting something, but then opposing it when the other party comes into office. To the degree you agree with every single thing in your parties political platform, than it is fine to only support republicans, and appose democrats. However if you make arguments against a an action when it is the other guys in the white house, but support the president's right to take that action when they are in power, than this type of motivation will not lead to good policies. It is the double standard, hypocrisy, or changing standards that have you defend the person when he or she is from the other party. There...

Liberal guilt: Race: People should not be controlled by their guilt into supporting candidates or policies that end up hurting society.  Guilt is good. People that ignore their conscience are monsters. Politics is not always about fighting for the best policy. Sometimes people look at political office as a form of approval, and voting for someone or appointing someone is a way to right a past wrong. Cynical people might appoint someone who check's all the right boxes, and they use liberal guilt as a way of daring their opponents to oppose their appointee. In a perfect world, I think all these side issues would be brushed away. Politics would be more focused on good policy, instead of personalities. Minority groups would represent more than just their percentage of the population, as olive branches to their communities, and international bragging rights, but people would not be controlled by their guilt into supporting candidates or policies that end up hurting society. America...

For the interest of this blog, this includes people who oppose Obama because of his race. This can be people who do it consciously, hard core racist, and subconscious. Also, in terms of advancing the best policy from a color-blind policy argument standpoint, it is also less confusing when side issues such as race come into the picture. For instance you might tell people to vote independent of race and background, encouraging even minorities to to support people based on their policy not their race. However, it might not be as big of a deal with minorities because by definition minorities are less likely to monopolize policy in a republic, unless everyone thinks of themselves as a minority, and each minority group is not interested in the general advancement, but only their minority group's advancement. See Racism and Liberal guilt as motivations on each side. Racism is alive and ugly. It is often silent, and even unconscious. It would lead to people opposing Obama even when they mi...

If they are a democrat, defending a fellow democrat. Or if they share other characteristics with Obama (race, career, home town, home state, religion, background, etc) they would identify with these (to the degree you agree with every single thing in your parties political platform, this is acceptable, but to the degree that it is a mindless rooting for the home team, party affiliation is a motivation that will not help us make better decisions.

The desire to promote more positive role models for our youth (60%). This is understandable but will result in the government making more bad decisions. Sure, you want people with inspiring life stories to have success, however, if everyone allowed themselves to make decisions on whether or not to support or oppose Obama based on this motivations, Obama would gain more support for his unwise policy decisions than they would be able to gain, in a battlefield of ideas that were less impervious to motivation not related to the issue being discussed. You can still want Obama to succeed overall but fight with him on specific issues. The desire to promote more positive role models for our youth is a bad reason, by itself, to agree with Obama on specific policy decisions.

Self Interest (of those who are not Rich, 90%). These people believe they will “get more” from Obama (90%). Obama openly promised that he would raise taxes on the very rich and give more to the “middle class”. This is a bad motivation, because if everyone only acted on self interest, bad things would happen.

Reasons  to agree: I had political beliefs before Obama came along. I will have them even when we have a new president. My dislike for Obama's policy has nothing to do with him, but my preference for libraterial and republican beliefs (mostly). I like Obama. I think he will be good for our country and an inspiration for millions. I focus on him because he is the most visual proponent of democratic agenda. I could just post what I believe, but people wouldn't care, and so I post what I believe with respect to why I think Obama is right or wrong. Anyways I just want to say that I believe Obama is an inspiration. 

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/20/williams_obama_dc/ As I watch Washington politics, I am not easily given to rage. Washington politics is a game; selfishness, out-sized egos, and corruption are predictable. But over the last week, I find myself in a fury. The cause of my upset is watching the key civil rights issue of this generation — improving big city public school education — get tossed overboard by political gamesmanship (Romney has said, "Some kids, particularly certain minority populations, are falling behind. Horace Mann said that education was the great equalizer. But in too many of our schools today, that is not being achieved. I believe that the failure of education in urban schools is the civil rights issue of our generation." –Source: 2006 State of the State Address, January 2006 ). Suppose one goal deserves to be held above the day-to-day partisanship and pettiness of ordinary politics. In that case,  it is the effort to end the scandalous poor leve...

Reasons  to agree: In a speech given in Lansing, Michigan, Senator Obama called for the completion of the Alaska natural gas pipeline, stating, “Over the next five years, we should also lease more of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska for oil and gas production. And we should also tap more of our substantial natural gas reserves and work with the Canadian government to finally build the Alaska natural gas pipeline, delivering clean natural gas and creating good jobs in the process.“  Natural Gas is cleaner than coal. Probable interest  (or motive) of those who agree: Republican Party Affiliation  (40%) They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%) Racism  (5%) Political laziness & issue crossover . Money  for those living in Alaska, or in the Energy market. The desire for lower cost natural gas (more supply) Probable interest  (or motive)  of those who disagree: They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (...

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY   In 1929, the  Soviet Union  established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.      -------------------------- ----     In 1911,  Turkey  established gun control.. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.      -------------------------- ----     Germany  established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.      -------------------------- ----     China  established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated      -------------------------- ----     Guatemala  established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.      ---- -...

In 1929, the  Soviet Union  established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.      -------------------------- ----     In 1911,  Turkey  established gun control.. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.      -------------------------- ----     Germany  established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.      -------------------------- ----     China  established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated      -------------------------- ----     Guatemala  established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.      ---- ------------- -------------     ...

The following is a blog post that links to this site: http://ffgop.canalblog.com/archives/2009/04/08/13308145.html For those of you don't speak French, Google can help: Just copy and paste it into this site, http://translate.google.com ...and this is what you get Constructive criticism is one thing that the Democrats (and the Left in general) cannot do. Right, we seek to improve things, to solve problems. On this same site and with the media, we do not hesitate to support the U.S. President when he's right, even if it is democratic. Supporters of Mitt Romney released a website with this in mind. The idea is to use the quotes and actions of Barack Obama, and explain how its actions are positive, negative or otherwise. Visit! http://r2aadwo.blogspot.com/ Thanks for linking to this blog!

Reasons to agree: Obams says how great public schools are, however he sent his own kids to private schools while he was in Chicago and DC, but he opposes vouchers that would allow us to choose were to send our kids, like he did. Obama said that Rich people didn't pay enough taxes when Bush was president, but he is a millionare, and he didn't pay extra money to the government because he thought it was right. Infact he hardly gave any money to charity. From 2000 to 2006 he gave 1, .5, .4, 1.4, 1.2, 4.7, and then finnaly 6.1%. For 4 years in a row he gave less than 2%. Most average republicans give more than that, and most republicans that had as much as he had gave way more than him. Yet he goes on and on about great he was to work as a community organizer, when that was just a job to get him into politics.

Reasons to agree: Obama was asked: Q: Do you send your kids to public school or private school? Obama said: “A: My kids have gone to the University of Chicago Lab School, a private school, because I taught there, and it was five minutes from our house. So it was the best option for our kids. But the fact is that there are some terrific public schools in Chicago that they could be going to (notice latter why he brings this up). The problem is, is that we don’t have good schools, public schools, for all kids. A US senator can get his kid into a terrific public school (if this is true, why did he send his kids to a private school? He says that it was close, but you would think that if he doesn’t support vouchers, that he only wants us to send out kids to public schools, that he would go to the extra effort). That’s not the question (yes it is. The question you were asked is if you send your kids to public or private schools). The question is whether or not ordinary parents, who can’t w...