http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.php Copyright 2012, Eddie Patin Eddie Patin en-US SPHPBLOG 0.5.1 http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.php?entry=entry111216-012311
The results are staggering.

Why? I mean, of course we all know that unsecured credit totally sticks it to you when you're forced by circumstance or irresponsibility to make only the minimum payments, and this is, of course, what makes the banks extremely wealthy. I'd bet most people have NO IDEA how much is actually pissing away into interest.

And why's that?

Because credit cards have interest rates we're all familiar with: Typically 9.99%, to 12.99%, maybe 15.99%, or as high as 29.99% if your credit REALLY sucks and you've made lots of mistakes. HOWEVER, this has to do with calculations based on your principle (total amount owed), and has little to do with minimum payments.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the math that leads banks to suck up such enormous percentages of what you're paying them, which I'm about to show you, but I'm sure it has to do with calculating the precise amount (around 1% plus some figure of interest) to come up with minimum payments that are grossly profitable (Did I just disgust myself with profit? Bad Eddie!) to the banks, and will keep you enslaved forever.

When you make a minimum payment, how do you know how much of that payment goes to what you owe (your principle), and how much goes into the black hole of interest?


(Assuming this is done on a closed card that you're not still charging--that way you get accurate numbers for this...)

1. On your current month, take a look at how much your balance is.

2. Take a look at the previous month's balance, after you made your monthly minimum payment.

3. The difference between the two is how much your last payment bit into your principle.

4. The difference between THAT number and the total minimum payment you made is how much got sucked away into interest.

5. Divide the amount that went to interest by the amount you paid (I might have the verbiage of that backwards--it's been a long time since I've been up on proper mathematical lingo), and that's the percentage of your minimum payment that (at least last month--it varies slightly month to month) went to interest.

I guarantee this number will be nowhere NEAR what 'interest' you thought you were paying on that card.

Here's examples from my own (extensive) credit card debt. I'll leave out the actual numbers. I don't want you to feel sorry for me ... unless you want to give me money, that is. But this is amazing:

Chase Credit Card: 42.6% of minimum payment went to Interest.

Sally Mae Student Loan: 45.1% of minimum payment went to Interest.

Discover Credit Card: 51.5% of minimum payment went to Interest.

US Bank Credit Card: 53.2% of minimum payment went to Interest.

Wells Fargo Line of Credit: 57.8% of minimum payment went to Interest.

And the major whoppers:

Lowes Credit Card (HSBC? That Chinese Bank I think?): 61.5% of minimum payment went to Interest.
(Edit: Turns out the bank is GE Capital Retail Bank.)

Wells Fargo Visa Card: 62.3% of minimum payment went to Interest.

Over my entire month's balance of minimum payments for unsecured debt, that's an average of 51.3% of all that money I'm paying, unless I can pay more than the minimum balance, going into the bankers' pockets.

And no, before this makes you hate banks, I don't despise Wall Street or any of that bullshit. I made this bed, and now I'm sleeping in it. While the banks are very tricky with making extreme profit from me and thousands of others like me through these obscene amounts of interest, it was a voluntary, mutual agreement. I chained myself. And now I'll slowly, painfully, work those chains free, a wiser man.

But, if you've never run these numbers before, you may find these percentages amazing. If you run your own numbers, this will help you formulate a plan for paying off your cards in the order in which you pay the most monthly interest, with that extra 10% each month or however you go about it as suggested by Dave Ramsey or whoever.

And if you're credit cards are still young, let this be a lesson to you. Pay them off before they grow into an enormous monster and you're a slave to the banks.

]]> General http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.php?entry=entry111216-012311 Eddie Patin Fri, 16 Dec 2011 06:23:11 GMT http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/comments.php?y=11&m=12&entry=entry111216-012311 http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.php?entry=entry111215-010129
How many people out there get to the point where they can't stand being out of shape anymore, and eventually go 'blaaaarrrrggg' into as blog entry, or even devote an entire new blog or website to their quest to finally get back into shape? And how many actually stick with it? Or become so successful at it that they go on to become a personal trainer / author, or get a plug on Oprah, or inspire others to do the same?

I'm definitely getting off course here already. This isn't about becoming a famous weight-loss personality. It's about saying 'enough is enough' and 'it's time to kick shit into gear' and 'time to get fucking serious' and all the other crap involved with starting another diet and, hopefully, a transformation into a healthier person.

I used to be a personal trainer. I took pride in that. I still do. It's an admirable profession, though difficult to succeed in. However, people who know me these days, and only got to know me within the last few years, would have no freakin idea that I used to be a mountain-climbing, adventuring, iron-pumping machine with good self-discipline and a size 29 waist.

I think my waist is like 43 today. I don't really keep up on it. And that's a problem. Because since, oh, about early 2008, I've been totally sedentary, very indulgent, and not abstinent of any vices.

There's definitely something to be said about an encroaching weight problem creeping up on you. It's there when you have a mental image of being thinner than you are when you see pictures of yourself (holy shit!!! fat!!). And what's worse, there comes a point when your body is so heavy for its frame that it starts malfunctioning and breaking down.

Seriously. As in, I'm developing a 'trick knee'. That's all I can call it, without being properly diagnosed, because I don't show any symptoms of tearing any muscles or ligaments, but more like 'tendonitis' of the patella and surrounding tissues, very likely because I'm just getting too damned heavy for my knees that are designed to support somewhere around 160-180 pounds. Quite a ways off from where I really stand on the scale.

My right knee goes out sometimes. Or becomes extremely painful when going down an incline, or doing squats or lunges. It looks like I've let my weight get bad enough to where simple exercise won't fix things anymore. I've got to lose weight.

I remember seeing movies, or reading testimonies, etc., where people, finding that their weight is so great that their life is in danger if they don't change, suddenly make the decision to finally take weight loss seriously. And thinking on this tonight, I realized that I'm practically in that boat. If I don't lose weight to a level manageable by my joints, etc., I presume I could permanently damage my body. And I guess that's pretty damned serious.

And I'm only 32. Shame, shame.

Well, one thing I know about the body is its ability to change and adapt in amazing ways. I've read accounts by many middle-age men who never took fitness seriously until they started, say, 'Body for Life' or something in middle age, and now, in their 40's and 50's, they're stronger and fitter than they were in their 20's.

Simple stuff. Only willpower.
So this is another of thousands of blog entries saying that, 'this time, I MEAN it'. Lol. As if. I guess I'll see. (But I'm super SERIOUS this time!) ... (We'll see, won't we?)

So here's a very simple diet that's effective and works, along with a basic exercise program for dead meat like me:

Diet

- No sugar that's not already present in natural food (no non-diet soda, no candy, no baked goodies, no added sugar).
- No processed foods.
- No trans fat.

A version of 'The Paleo Diet'
- All variety of meats, excluding processed meat (deli meat and slim-jims, for instance).
- Fish.
- Poultry.
- Game meat.
- Eggs.
- Dairy.
- All variety of fruits and vegetables, the more raw the better.
- Seeds and nuts.
- Avoid breads, grains, and starches when possible.

Limiting alcohol intake to one drink a night.

I won't be giving any special attention to avoiding fat. Fat is good for you. All fats, including saturated fat, except for trans fat. This means dairy, animal fat, polyunsaturated (fish, seeds, and some oils), monounsaturated (olive oil, avocado, nuts).

Attention will be given to portion sizes. Watch the input. Don't eat to much. Weight management doesn't have so much to do with WHAT you eat, as HOW MUCH you eat.

Exercise:

Plyometrics and bodyweight, mostly. Strength training with additional weight will focus on each major muscle group worked hard only once a week to allow maximum time for rebuilding.

Will work into a daily routine of bodyweight exercises, such as:
- Jumping Jacks
- Pushups
- Squats
- Situps and Plank
- Calf Extensions
- Burpees
- Squat jumps

Will later work in a weekly routine like I used to train with:
- Chest/Back day
- Legs day
- Arms and shoulders day

Lots of stretching to work back to my previous 'Yoga' self.

So here we go. With all of the public (that bothers to read my blog) keeping me honest, will I go through with it? I'd better, or I'll be an old man in my 30's.]]> Fitness http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.php?entry=entry111215-010129 Eddie Patin Thu, 15 Dec 2011 06:01:29 GMT http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/comments.php?y=11&m=12&entry=entry111215-010129 http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.php?entry=entry111016-135047
Until you examine what exactly he's saying, and realize that it's merely aimless bitching that 'someone' (the government, or the government after confiscating the wealth of 'the rich') should SAVE everybody.

Here's the stupid letter:




And here's the ongoing Facebook Conversation that's following:

---

Me:
Yeah ... the big problem with that is that the government shouldn't be taking care of people. We should take care of ourselves. If what you're taught, as far as the right way to succeed and play by the rules, is failing ... question the 'right way' and learn what to do. Question your teachers.

I mean, what's the point of this? To make people take care of everybody else? To make the government? Just general bitching? Oh yeah, right ... it's 'Wall Street's fault.

---

Isaac:
No..more along the lines of that wealth distribution is biased.

---

Me:
Sorry ... did you want more wealth distributed your way?

---

Isaac:
If you want to rant or cut down a social ideology, either find a better forum, or stop speaking with a condescending tone so I can take your argument more seriously.

---

Me:
This dude's letter is a rant, and his insinuation (or lack of coherent insinuation thereof) is condescending to me, and to a Capitalist mind of clarity. I thought my previous comments were pretty clear.

How, Isaac, is wealth distribution biased? Why even use that term? Should wealth be distributed, or earned? Or do you mean the opportunity to earn wealth is biased? That would be a much less Socialist thing to say, and more to the point of what I think you mean.

---

Isaac:
Is this the forum I which you want to engage this? No minds being changed, no lasting effect noted... Nothing but wounded egos and stubbornness are all that await from a verbal engagement here

---

Me:
That's alright. I'll spare you the debate. If you're really way over there, then I've learned by now that I can't really change other peoples' minds anyway. You have to figure it out for yourself.

---

Isaac:
I'm not way over anywhere...I just realize that things are not working the way they are now, and that the resources exist to exact change but there is no true way to exact some sort of acceptable change.

I'm not asking for a handout, I'm asking that if people are busting there ass then they deserve the ability to feed there kids and make sure that their medical needs are met. It's unfair that there are "invisible privileges" that are exploited by classes/subcultures to maintain their status-quo while others work just as hard and exert just as much and have to sometimes choose between having wisdom tooth pulled or eating... Between an eye exam and contacts, or staying current on bills.

This view may have you believe me to be a socialist but please do not confuse my belief of resources being mis-allocated with others who believe that everyone is entitled to a handout.

I'm not extreme left, I for sure am not extreme right, I just don't call the CEO of NV energy receiving 5 million a year, while friends of mine with Doctorates live paycheck to paycheck, justice. (And yes, they are gainfully employed)

---

Drew Finnin (random interloper)
Okay, speaking of the the Moderate Left here... I have a 6% IRA fee on my paychecks without match from my company because I know when I hit 60 it should worth it.. I have a paycheck that looks like I should be working for our sweatshop, I do not complain. I do not make waves. I only ask that when I finally decide I can afford to go to school, I should be able to apply to a scholarship and not be told "I'm sorry, we've had to downsize our choices by half because there isn't enough funding." Or be told by my job that PTO won't be paid when I get fired because the company lost the foresight to make sure their workers would get due compensation.

---

Me:
Isaac, consider the view of Capitalism. Busting your ass does not make you 'deserve' anything. Other than what you agreed to earn based on said busting of ass. Working smart trumps working hard any day. Honestly, if you or your doctorate friends aren't satisfied working where they're working, because they can't pull a tooth or whatever, then do something else. And it's hard finding another job, sure. But break out of the box of just 'working jobs'. This is America. With intelligence and hard work, you can forge your own path and make as much money as you can. There's a reason the CEO of NV Energy got where he is today and makes 5mil a year--it's not like he's royalty or anything. There are no 'invisible proviledges'. I mean--maybe there are sometimes due to corruption, but don't use that as a crutch. Don't hate the CEO because he makes 5mil a year and you want some, and you want your friends to have some. Go out and make your own 5mil. That's the thing about Capitalism--you can do whatever you want to do. You can also bitch about how it's not fair that you and yours work hard (it doesn't take any creative entrepreneurship to be an employee) and don't make enough.

Working hard and not making the same as 'the rich' has NOTHING to do with Justice. Justice is equal opportunity. And it's right there, waiting for you to open up to it.

Drew, if your paycheck looks like you work in a sweatshop, then STOP WORKING FOR A SWEATSHOP. Go do something better. Make your own way.

And education is not a magic bullet for getting more money. Just ask Isaac's doctorate friends. Unless we're in a boom and jobs are easy to get, it's getting pretty obvious that education does not guarantee work. All education can do is better yourself ... for yourself. For a purpose. It must serve a purpose.

---

Isaac:
That'd be great if we actually did have a true capitalist society and there really wasn't class divisions.

---

Me:
There are no class divisions.

The lack of a true Capitalist system is caused by over-regulation, which interferes with Capitalism's natural system of checks and balances. And who perpetuates that?

And the idea of class divisions is pounded into peoples' heads by leftists, because a divided people is easier to control. I mean ... think about all the people in the media, or the activists, who are always bitching about things not being fair. Who's doing the talking?

Why is Capitalism under attack? Who has been perpetuating poor vs rich all this time? Blacks vs whites?

Class divisions are an illusion. Anyone can climb to the top. Whatever ACTUAL class division exists, and even corruption to hold people back from climbing too fast, is too small to REALLY get in the way.

---

Isaac:
These are all great theories, bit there are still facts, incidents, events, and a multitude of other things that show just the opposite. Still, I say again, there is no convincing a dog there is a rainbow and there is no convincing you that there is any validity in my beliefs. While I will admit that some of the things you say are true and valid, you would never acknowledge the same, it seems. So enjoy your final word, as you'll probably get in, but again I say that there is no change to be had by arguing here.

---

Me:
I'm strong in my views, just like you. And there's no convincing me of something I think is fundamentally wrong. I've seen the glory of Capitalism, and I don't need to 'go get a job'. I make my own way. And I could do WAY better if I just got off my lazy ass and worked harder, but that's my responsibility, and the balance of Capitalism. And I'm not going to try to convince you of anything, because of that whole dog/rainbow concept. I came to understand that a long time ago. Maybe, with an open mind, you might find something you like. You could say the same thing about me, but if you open to me, it leads the way to positive things. And if I accept your views, it seems to just lead to negativity, since nothing productive could come out of what you're saying.

Incidentally, I just watched this, about similar stuff we were talking about. Watch from 9:58 on. Everything before it is about a problem with Cain's 9-9-9 plan, which you're probably not interested in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTZRwLdb2nQ]]> Politics, Facebook Comment Conversations http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.php?entry=entry111016-135047 Eddie Patin Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:50:47 GMT http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/comments.php?y=11&m=10&entry=entry111016-135047 http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.php?entry=entry110520-012854


I was born in 1979. And as an adult, I really got into classic rock, which was a genre before my time. So when I heard that Styx was coming to Colorado Springs (tonight), I figured I'd better go and see this legendary classic rock band, or I'd never get to. Not as old as I thought they'd be (all of them were around my parents' age), I was absolutely floored at how skilled these rock-stars were. Truly masters of their craft, it was the most moving concert I'd ever seen. In fact, the two guitarists (James Young and Tommy Shaw) and the keyboard player (Lawrence Gowan) ALL seemed to be front-men, lead singers, and soloists in their own individual rights.

I've heard the popular Styx songs, and I've listened to a few others (a clip from Suite Madame Blue is my ringtone), but I've never really LISTENED to the lyrics and themes of their music before. Styx is amazing. Master composers, and positive, uplifting lyrics that focus on self-esteem and being whatever you want to be.

Their performance played on the audience (and myself) in an explosion of positive energy like I'd never felt before. During many songs their harmony and epic extended instrumentals nearly brought me to tears. And, as cliche as it might be, "Come Sail Away" actually DID get the tears flowing. But, it wasn't just the music--it was a strange and magical cumulative effect they had on the audience that raised an odd (but powerful) sensation of togetherness that I had never felt before. And though I was there alone, I could see it and feel it in the people around me. During "Come Sail Away", people were actually swaying in many places with arms locked over shoulders. In such a 'hippie-fest' of feeling, I was helpless to the effect.

You could see such positive energy in the band itself, the guitarists and bassists often lining up to do a sort of 'magnificent seven' advance on the stage, side by side and choreographed. Another moving part was when an older man came out to guest-play the bass, which was obviously significant to older members of the audience. Turned out he was one of the original (and retired) band members who contracted HIV at some point. It was moving in the way a stranger can feel the significance of looking on old friends united.

Again, a very moving concert. Enough to soften the heart of this hard-hearted Liberty defender who has accepted the idea of becoming a monster in order to fight evil with effect. Such overwhelming positive energy gives me pause enough to look at the anger and fire inside myself, and think about applying myself in a positive way that bypasses and ignores evil. ... Almost.

I expected Styx to be pretty aged, and that if I didn't see them now, I'd never get another chance. But, they're freakin incredible and obviously going to be around rockin for quite a while. See them when you can. It's almost a religious experience.]]> Culture http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.php?entry=entry110520-012854 Eddie Patin Fri, 20 May 2011 05:28:54 GMT http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/comments.php?y=11&m=05&entry=entry110520-012854 http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.php?entry=entry110424-025510
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/con ... ermit.html

Here's my contribution:

---

I realize that I'm resurrecting a post from 2009, but it's an important issue, and there's not much discussion about this stuff out there on the internet. It's even more important THESE days, where multiple states are pushing for new laws allowing for citizens legally able to carry to be able to carry concealed without a permit.

While I don't condone illegal activity, as a normal, non-criminal dude, there is something all of you have to remember, if you can put aside your worship for the law for the sake of law:

Our right to carry shall not be infringed. Because of our negligence and laziness, we've already allowed 'them' to take away our ability to carry concealed without a permit, which should have never happened in the first place. It's unconstitutional to infringe upon that right, and unconstitutional laws must be challenged. Some would say that such laws are null and void, but the law still has the strength to enforce it anyway, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. So we have to deal with it until it's set right (if ever).

I tried to play by the rules and obtain a CHP here in Colorado. After jumping through some hoops because of some crap in my background, stuff that never should or would have disqualified me from the 'privilege' of carrying concealed with a government permission slip, our good sheriff denied me anyway. And never considered my appeals. And responded with an informal letter simply quoting a law that allows the sheriff to deny a permit for whatever reason he wants.

And recently, Colorado tried to pass a 'Constitutional Carry' bill just like Arizona, Montana, Vermont, Alaska, etc., but it was killed in the Senate by a kangaroo committee assigned by a damned Liberal Senate Leader designed to kill the bill.

So if I want to be able to protect myself, my family, and people around me, without the hassle of simply Open Carrying everywhere (which I can't do while working, when it's cold out, and in certain locales), I must resort to becoming a criminal.

Someone once said that the only way to control free men is to make them into criminals.

Grady, your friend is in the wrong in his approach. As many have pointed out, playing the 'ignorance of the law' card is no way to defend yourself when the chips come down. I am, however, comforted by the fact that so many people know other people that carry anyway, some no doubt because of being in similar situations that I'm in, despite such unconstitutional laws.

I must say, after trying the legal route, and supporting the legislative route, that I've toyed with the idea that the only way to defeat this anti-gun oppression in places (like here) where the legal approach has failed to reach justice, would be to carry illegally with the idea that if eventually 'getting caught', I, or someone else in the same shoes, could take the charges (in Colorado, a Class 2 Misdemeanor) to the Supreme Court in hopes of defeating a bad law. There has been a bit of Supreme Court action regarding gun rights lately, and it's a good time for it.

Of course, it's speculation (moderators), and I'm certainly not recommending illegal activity, or even conspiring. I've done no such thing. But as far as brainstorming goes, how else do we take back the rights that we've lost, if your particular state's legislature is populated by anti-constitutional statists?

Food for thought.]]> Politics, Warrior Stuff http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.php?entry=entry110424-025510 Eddie Patin Sun, 24 Apr 2011 06:55:10 GMT http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/comments.php?y=11&m=04&entry=entry110424-025510 http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.php?entry=entry110107-024359 Iron John" by Robert Bly. This quote is actually from 1465, spoken by a French Knight, Jean de Brueil:

"Battle is a joyous thing. We love each other so much in battle. If we see that our cause is just and our kinsmen fight boldly, tears come to our eyes. A sweet joy rises in our hearts, in the feeling of our honest loyalty to each other; and seeing our friend so bravely exposing his body to danger in order to fulfill the commandment of our Creator*, we resolve to go forward and die or live with him on account of love. This brings such delight that anyone who has not felt it cannot say how wonderful it is. Do you think someone who feels this is afraid of death? Not in the least! He is so strengthened, so delighted, that he does not know where he is. Truly, he fears nothing in the world!"

Very inspiring.

---

* I ticked an asterisk at 'Creator' to touch briefly on another point. As a firm atheist, but an atheist with the virtues and values of the 'Code of Seven', I have no problem seeing people of various beliefs refer to needing 'God' in their lives or something similar.

This is because, not necessarily be-known to them, (and I'll touch more on this another time,) their holding to 'God' and their dogma as their values is psychologically and emotionally no different than me holding to my dedication to Ration, Purpose, Pride, Justice, Integrity, Honesty, Independence, and the Discipline required to pull it all together.

We all have our own gods, and they are structures of belief and value that build the foundation of our selves. Be that a manifestation of a bearded old man sitting up in the sky saying 'Thou Shalt', or an abstract ideal, it all works the same in the brain, and, accepting a certain tolerance for harmless delusion, is healthy.

... unless you try to force your ideals on another.

... or have to defend your ideals from those who would seek to destroy or enslave you, in which case you should SMASH THEM hip and thigh (to quote a man who hides behind a colorful pseudonym). Which is still healthy, and allows cultures and civilizations to develop in the most textbook Darwinian fashion.

Of course, this applies to everyone except for nihilists. Who are cowards. And the morally gray, who sanction evil and are a lot closer to nihilism than their Liberal Masters allow them to believe.]]> Philosophy, Culture http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.php?entry=entry110107-024359 Eddie Patin Fri, 07 Jan 2011 07:43:59 GMT http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/comments.php?y=11&m=01&entry=entry110107-024359 http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.php?entry=entry101015-142946
When researching the Colorado Ballot this year, at least so far, all I've seen outside of the official forms are Liberal Democrat positions and commentary. (Doug Bruce is Doctor Evil ... haha.) So this should be a breath of fresh air for you Liberty-minded individuals out there looking for explanations about the ballot.

---

Amendment P: Regulation of Games of Chance

This Amendment takes games in El Paso county, like Bingo and Raffles, and is trying to regulate them more than they already are by the State Department, by spending over $100,000 to move such regulation to the Department of Revenue, make more money from such gambling, etc. Some folks think that it's best to consolidate all forms of gambling to the Dept of Revenue. More reasonable folks think that this is an unreasonable expense during a recession. And I hate more regulation, anyway.

Vote NO on Amendment P.

---

Amendment Q: Temporary Location for the State Seat of Government

Another lot of useless bunk. This Amendment allows the Governor to move to a temporary location in the case of a declared emergency. He can already do that anyway, legally. I wonder if there's a more sinister motive behind such a pointless piece of legislature.

Vote NO on Amendment Q. Or YES. Don't care. Although NO is probably better for the people.

---

Amendment R: Exempt Possessory Interests in Real Property.

This has to do with getting rid of unnecessary taxes on using Government Land. Sometimes Ranchers, Ski Resorts, Rafting Companies, etc., lease Government Land for various purposes, and are charged a special Property Tax to do so. Normally, Government Land is exempt from taxes. The 'Possessory' Property Taxes are just an unfair squeeze on the individuals leasing the property, since they pay for the leasing already anyway, and (as usual), the Government mismanages those taxes to the point where it's not profitable for the Gov't, but is instead a drain on the system. Amendment R removes those taxes. Which is good. Because there are too many taxes on everything anyway. (Not to mention that fact that this will stop the state from LOSING money on such pointless extortion.)

Vote YES on Amendment R.

---

Okay ... So far, I've been going down the list of the Ballot Blue Book, but I'm going to go out of order for a minute in order to lump all of Doug Bruce's three initiatives together.

Has anyone seen all of those lawn signs out in Colorado Springs that say, "Vote NO on 60, 61, and 101--DON'T HURT COLORADO!!!!!"? The opposition to Doug's measures are well-funded this time around, because such special interests all stand to lose some dough (that's your dough and mine) if the measures succeed. And if you go to the opposition's website, you'll see that they say the measures will KILL 74,000 JOBS (which is based on a very unscientific and bogus 'study'), and the ONLY thing they have to work with is pulling on heart-strings and showing pictures of construction workers 'looking sad'.

Whenever Liberals have nothing to say to fight a bill logically, out comes the pity card and pictures of 'the people' being sad. Just how stupid do they think we are? Whenever one side of an issue can't say anything more than "it's gonna HURT Colorado" or show picture of people with sad expressions on their faces, be suspect. Be very suspect.

So I looked up the bills, when I first saw those signs, and heard the ads, and wasn't surprised to see Doug Bruce, and anti-tax Crusader, fighting to abolish more unnecessary, extorting taxes, and reign in a government out of control. And not only did he have ONE initiative this year, he had THREE:

(Go Doug Bruce!!)

Amendment 60: Property Taxes
Amendment 61: Limits on State and Local Government Borrowing
Proposition 101: Income, Vehicle, and Telecommunication Taxes and Fees

So, we're seeing a lot of 'fees' lately, right? That's because new taxes must be voted on, so the corrupt bastards of city hall (sorry to sound like a Liberal there...) create more taxes and call them 'fees'. Well, not anymore.

Amendment 60 puts a control on the government to keep them from getting out of control with property taxes. Right now, property taxes are above their 'constitutional limits'. We'll put a stop to that. This also makes new property taxes have an 'expiration date', where voters will have to approve new taxes, instead of just being stuck again and again with more. The more controversial aspect of this Amendment (at least to the Leftists who either don't understand it, or WANT to extort the citizens of Colorado) is a change in some school expenses, now funded by property taxes (on your home), to be changed to being funded by state funding. This has got the Liberals screaming, "Teachers will lose their JOBS!!", but it really only means that the state will be funding the schools from now on, instead of the houses around it, and they'll have to be more careful with state spending to make sure school funding gets its due.

Speaking of which, a lot of Doug Bruce's measures this year have to do with restricting the state government in a way that makes it SLOW DOWN, back up, and critically examine how it's going to allocate its resources--which is how it SHOULD BE.

Amendment 61 puts a restriction on the state's ability to 'borrow' money for projects. This is a great Amendment, and will keep us from going the way of California. It's like cutting up the credit cards, to a degree. If the state needs money to do ... whatever ... it can't go further into debt to do it. The state needs to 'save money' until it has everything it needs to pay for the project. After getting approval from the voters, of course.

And Proposition 101. Putting an end to bullshit fees, cutting unnecessary extortion off at the knees, and forcing the DMV to be more efficient. We'd all love THAT, wouldn't we? Simply put, this prop reduces state income tax from 4.63 to 3.5 percent, eliminates bullshit fees from your phone bill (except for the 911 fee), and requires voter approval before any future increases. Oh--and it removes taxes and fees from vehicle purchases, rentals, leases, etc., and CUTS VEHICLE SALES TAX to a FLAT $10. No more $150 taxes to register your car. Has anyone noticed that that particular tax (when you buy a new car and go to get it registered) has been massively increasing in the last few years? Not anymore.

Leftist creeps complain that Doug's three measures this year are not about reducing taxes, but shrinking the government. Damn straight. If the government needs approval and has restrictions to keep it from taxing the hell out of us and galloping the state into debt, then it's out of control and needs to be cut back to where it once again serves the people.

This will help. A lot.

Vote YES on Amendment 60, 61, and Prop 101.

---

Stepping back a bit numerically, let's move on to:

Amendment 62: Application of the Term Person

This is a pro-life initiative. And it's dangerous. Not because I'm personally pro-choice, because I support our Republic and the peoples' right to vote on such stuff. It's dangerous because the Amendment is carelessly worded, and is burdened with potential for loads of unintended consequences:

"Amend the Colorado Constitution to apply the term 'person', as used in the Bill of Rights, equality of justice, and due process of law, to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."

The 'beginning of biological development', huh? Couldn't they say something more like, "the creation of the embryo stage known as 'zygote'", or something more specific? The danger here is the vagueness of said 'beginning of biological development'.

Aside from the typical pro-choice reasons to be against it, like the occasional necessity for an abortion in life-endangering circumstances, rape victims, etc., as well as the unconstitutional intrusion into doctor-patient privacy (debatable in the endless debate), the real problem here is the lack of clarity. The 'beginning of biological development' is unclear, undefined, has no established legal meaning, and is not an accepted medical or scientific term.

This will make certain types of contraceptives illegal. This MAY, after a silly court case, make ALL contraceptives illegal. It also doesn't allow any wriggle room for circumstance. It's just a big brick bashing in the whole concept, and it does it poorly and recklessly.

Even though I'll always personally vote pro-choice, this Amendment goes beyond the pro-choice and pro-life debate, because it's worded poorly and dangerously, and should be unceremoniously shot down so that its architects can come back with a real pro-life initiative that's written properly.

Vote NO on Amendment 62, pro-life OR pro-choice, and let those clowns go back to the drawing board to try again properly next time.

---

Amendment 63: Health Care Choice

Power to the people and DOWN with Tyranny!!

If you supported Obamacare, it's likely because you were tricked into it, or because you're stupid and think a whole country of people really can get something for nothing.

Did you know that ObamaCare will FORCE you to buy health insurance? Even if you don't want it? And that health insurance will be REALLY expensive when that starts happening? And that once the health insurance companies start going out of business, because they can't compete with the government health care, then government care will be the ONLY choice left? And you'll be FORCED to have it? And FORCED to pay for it? And, even though you'll be paying for it (even if you don't want it), it'll be like you don't even HAVE any health care, because with so many people needing it, or going in to the doctor for frivolous reasons, you'll have to WAIT six months, a year, MORE, just to get a test done, or to get time-sensitive surgery? And that is, you'll get your test or surgery IF the government decides you're worth putting money into? *phew*

Well, this is Colorado's chance to resist this bit of tyranny. Amendment 63 allows each individual citizen the right to opt out of MANDATORY Health Care if they so desire. I make a big deal out of MANDATORY and being FORCED to get Health Care because, whether you support Health Care Reform or not, it's downright unConstitutional and WRONG to be FORCED by the government to buy ANY product or service against your will. And Health Insurance is a service. If you have it, great. If you want it, great. But if, for whatever reason, you DON'T want it, it's fundamentally wrong to MAKE you have it. No, it's not like car insurance. You can choose not to drive on public roads, but you can't choose 'not to live'.

This is our chance to stand up against real and ugly tyranny. And you know what? Lots of other states are doing this, or already have. That means that the states that don't resist being FORCED to buy health insurance will have to pay a higher price for it, because of the states that DID fight it off.

Vote YES on Amendment 63.

---

Proposition 102: Criteria for Release to Pretrial Services Programs

This one is a little hard to understand, especially after seeing the Liberal commentaries that it's designed to supposedly secure more income for bail bondsmen and special interests ... or something like that.

Reading the proposition plainly seems to say that its purpose is to deny 'unsecured' bond to supervision (seems to be some special supervision program for poor offenders) to defendants unless it's that person's first offense, and the offense is a nonviolent misdemeanor.

Seems simple enough. And at first glance, it looks like a proposition worth voting for. But I would never vote 'FOR' a change until I fully understand what it is.

Vote YES on Prop 102. Or don't. I probably will.

---------------------------


Now for the more local stuff:

---

1A - County Question (Ban of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries)

This is a proposition that seeks to take advantage of Colorado Springs' Conservative nature for a knee-jerk vote to support the issue of a few 'crusaders' who hate the idea of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. Shall MMJ Dispensaries be BANNED in El Paso?

Don't let your personal approach to weed influence you here, my Conservative pals. The Medical Marijuana Dispensaries WON, some time ago, with the passage of Amendment 20. Then they won again when the anti-pot-brigade tried to pass a vote to ban them. And here it is AGAIN.

If we vote for something, and pass something, isn't it wrong to keep trying to vote it back down again, again and again?

Think about it like this, folks. Yes, it's true that it's really, really easy to get a license to smoke pot (if you have the money for the huge fees that go into STATE FUNDING), but only the people that want it or need it will get it. You don't HAVE to accept it. It's still illegal to drive under the influence, just like with alcohol, and you can still drug-test employees and fire people for coming to work high. This is a prohibition situation, and, like it or not, pot will go the way of alcohol and eventually be legalized (and heavily taxed).

Right now, aficionados, as well as folks who actually need it for medical purposes can get TOP QUALITY bud from lots and lots of dispensaries (who are very competitive with each other), very cheaply. Way, way cheaper than on the black market, and the stuff that they grow and sell legally is FAR superior than the schwag out on the street. What's that mean?

The drug dealers are out of business.

So what's gonna happen if you ban the Dispensaries? What will happen if you make the people who need pot for medical purposes, or just want it for recreational purposes, no longer able to buy their weed from easy, professional, high-quality legal sources? Think about it. That's why there are signs all over the city that say, "Vote NO on 1A - Citizens for Safe Neighborhoods".

This is a foolish attempt to ban an entire industry that makes the state a lot of money, helps a lot of people with chronic conditions, and provides work for hundreds of people here in the Springs, maybe more. If you think these places are like medieval Chinese Opium Dens, then you should visit one. I've rarely seen such levels of customer service in a long time. And if you're one of those folks upset about seeing a Dispensary 'on every corner', then I suggest you look at Pot JUST like alcohol. Everything applies the same way (except some would say that pot is safer)--keep an eye out for how many liquor stores are out there.

Vote NO on 1A. Or the unintended consequences will be dramatic.

---

1B, 1C, and 1D - County Questions

These are all the same, and they're simple, so I'll lump them all together. 1B is for the District Attorney, 1C for the County Commissioner, and 1D is for the County Treasurer, Clerk and Recorder, Assessor, and Surveyor. Shall all of these positions have a term limit of 3 consecutive terms?

Term limits are good. They make sure that an elected official can only be in that position for a certain amount of time, and no longer (just like how the President of the United States can only be president for 8 years). Applying term limits to positions makes sure that we always have fresh blood representing the people, which makes them more LIKELY to represent the people, and staves off corruption and abuse of power.

Vote YES on 1B, 1C, and 1D.

---

2A - Town of Ramah Question

I don't know if this will stay on the Colorado Springs Ballot, and I don't even know where Ramah is, but if you see it, vote FOR it. Shall Ramah permit the licensing and creation of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries? Of course. Eventually, the whole country will, like I said above, because we are seeing the death knells of an outdated prohibition. Want to win the drug war? Leave pot alone, let the drug dealers die, crushed by Capitalism, and focus efforts on combating the truly 'bad' drugs.

Vote YES on 2A, if it's on your ballot.

---

2B - City of Colorado Springs Question - Can we keep the extra taxes???

"Shall the city of Colo Sprgs be permitted to retain up to $600000 to yadda yadda yadda?"

We here in Colorado Springs are protected by something called "TABOR" (thanks to Doug Bruce), the "Taxpayer's Bill of Rights". The city of Colorado Springs collected an extra $600,000 in taxes over the TABOR-specified limit, and wants to keep it.

Vote NO on 2B.

---

2C - City of Colorado Springs Question - Trail Maintenance Tax

This one asks if the city can use 15% of 0.01% of our sales tax to be use for stewardship and maintenance of city trails, parks and open space. I'm pretty suspicious about anything involving in the city re-allocating taxes, but, if I understand this right (and they're not trying to slip some NEW taxes by us), this is acceptable to me.

Vote YES on 2C - unless I'm wrong about 'no new taxes', in which case TELL ME!

---

300 - City of Colorado Springs Question - The Strong Mayor Project

This one is COOL.

I had NO idea what this was, until I got a political survey call one night that got me thinking about the initiative and inspired me to study more into it. This is an initiative that will change Colorado Springs's governing structure from the 'corporate' structure it is today (I had NO IDEA this was going on) to the traditional Constitutional Structure where the officials are elected.

Right now, our city government is structured to where the Mayor (the corrupt Lionel Rivera) is a part-time member of city council, and the REAL power behind the throne is the city manager, who acts as 'CEO' of the council, is hired by the city council (NOT voted on by the people), and the total administrator of the city (I thought the Mayor was up until now), has control of the city's money, proposes new laws, etc., and is NOT held accountable for ineffective management and abuse of power.

This 'corporate' city government model (called 'Council-Manager') is typically designed for cities of no more than 100,000 people. Which Colorado Springs is definitely NOT.

The new model, what Prop 300 is all about, is the 'Council-Mayor' model. The position of 'City Manager' (unaccountable city dictator) is eliminated. Just like with State and Federal Government, the Mayor is now the head of the city and its administration, and is VOTED ON by the people. Then the balance of power is split up, with the mayor having veto power, the council being able to override a Mayor's veto with super-majority, etc., etc., just like in the Constitution. The Mayor is also full-time (instead of part-time), and makes less than half the salary of the 'city manager'.

We've had a BIG problem with the city of Colorado Springs abusing funds, mismanaging, running the city toward bankruptcy, and corruption abound. This initiative would be a leap forward in keeping our officials in check, working for the people, and accountable for their actions.

Vote YES on 300.

---

2D - City of Fountain Question - Can we keep our extra taxes too??

There's another one involving keeping extra taxes above the TABOR limit.

Vote NO on 2D.

---------------------------


Now for the people running for office:
(*Note - I'm not saying anything about people I haven't studied or know anything about. You're on your own there, although I'll be leaning Republican whenever I'm unsure, so we can reduce the numbers of Leftists in power.)

---

Colorado (Federal) Senate

The real race is between Ken Buck and Michael Bennet.

We've got a real problem in Washington right now with elected officials no longer representing the people who put them in office. In fact, our Republic isn't much of a Republic anymore, or even a Democracy--we're ruled by the elite. Many of the Senators and Congressmen, even our 'President', have lost their way in the forest of favors, cronyism, sucking up to so-and-so, and doing anything to hold onto their precious positions of power. The great majority of them, Republican OR Democrat, and TOTALLY out of touch with their people, and have been pushing through crazy bill after crazy bill, either too cowardly to rock the boat, or bought off, or truly believing the Socialist Bullshit that drives their leadership.

So, all over the country right now, there are grassroots candidates, popping up out of the ranks of the PEOPLE, to take back the country from this insanity, to ground ourselves once again in the Constitution, and to fight the corruption in the Capital.

Ken Buck is one of these grassroots candidates, and he's got a lead over his rival, Bennet, and stands a good chance to win. Even if you were planning to cast a vote for one of the third-party candidates, you should stand behind Buck. Even if you're tired of the Republican Party, because he's a Constitutionalist.

Michael Bennet is Obama's man. He was never voted on by the people ('appointed' by the corrupt Bill Ritter), and has been a rubber stamp for Obama these last 2 years.

Anyone remember the Primaries? Bennet had a pretty serious challenger, a guy named Andrew Romanoff. Romanoff what the Democrat's own version of a grassroots candidate, who challenged Bennet to represent the people instead of Obama's agenda. Obama tried to bribe Romanoff into dropping out of the race with a prominent and well-paying federal position, but Romanoff refused. This was illegal of course, the President bribing a candidate to stay out of a race, but it was swept under the rug. Obama wants Bennet. Because Bennet is another mindless drone to go along with Obama's Liberty-crushing agenda.

Vote Ken Buck for Senate if you value Liberty. If you hate Ken Buck, or if you hate what America stands for, don't vote.

---

Colorado (Federal) Congress

Keep the incumbent Doug Lamborn in office. I'm not necessarily a fan of Republicans as a rule, but we need to be able to take back the House and stop Nancy Pelosi from shoving more stupid bills down our throats.

Vote Doug Lamborn for Representative (District 5)

---

Colorado Governor

This is what I consider the most important vote for an individual candidate there is this year.

Colorado is in an important 'swing state' status, where the Gov Race will determine whether we go WAY to the left (the way of New York and California), or move back to the right, to be more of a 'free state' like we used to be; like all mountain states should be.

The Democratic candidate is John Hickenlooper, current Mayor of Denver. He's REALLY Liberal, and bad news for Colorado in ways that will affect your life PERSONALLY if he wins. He'll be a repeat of Bill Ritter, the corrupt Liberal governor (who values the mating practices of ground hogs over peoples' jobs in the coal and oil industry), and will be a total lay down for the Obama agenda. Millions in new taxes (which comes from YOUR pocket), choking restrictions on the Gas and Coal Industry (layoffs and higher unemployment), no resistance to you being FORCED to buy government-assigned health insurance (Obama Care), and mismanagement of the WHOLE STATE--not just Denver.

With the huge national surge of Conservatism, what should have been a drop in the bag for the Republican candidate has become a total MESS. Hickenlooper wouldn't be able to win if he was in a stand-up race against one opponent, but the Conservative candidates are fighting among themselves.

The Conservative vote is SPLIT. And that means that Hickenlooper will WIN, unless we all RALLY behind the stronger Conservative candidate.

These are Dan Maes (Republican) and Tom Tancredo (American Constitution Party).

In the past, and through the Primary, I supported Dan Maes. I saw him speak, and I liked him. But, he's fallen FAR behind in the polls and his lack of experience has allowed him to be hopelessly mired down in scandal and bad PR. I'm now supporting Tancredo, because he's also good on the Conservative issues (just like Dan), and he's the ONLY man who has a chance to defeat Hickenlooper.

You Dan Maes supporters, Scott McInnis supporters, any of you NOT behind Tancredo--get over it already and get behind him! Because we CANNOT ... we CANNOT ... allow Hickenlooper to win. It will damage Colorado too much in the next four years. I know Dan is a good guy, and it's sad that he's been so badly defeated by Tom, but I'm supporting Tom because I'm focusing on the BIGGER PICTURE. And you should too. Or we will lose Colorado to the Left.

And now, after all the bullshit, Dan Maes seems to be holding on out of sheer ego and refusal to give up to Tancredo. And the more I see, the more I'm sickened with Dan. He will destroy Colorado before he does the right thing. And he's even ENDORSED Hickenlooper's Liberal economic policies (the INSANITY!).

At the time of writing this, the polls show Hickenlooper with 44% support, Tancredo with 34%, and Maes with a pitiful 15%. Victory is just out of reach for Coloradoans who value Liberty. It's maddening. Because if Dan dropped out, like he should have done a long time ago, and sent his supporters Tom's way:

What's 34 + 15? ???

For the sake of our state and our freedom...

Vote Tom Tancredo for Governor.

---

State Treasurer

Vote Walker Stapleton. He's a day trader, and will be able to do a lot with our state funds.

---

Attorney General

Vote for John Suthers, the Incumbent. He was one of the several Attorneys General to resist the UnConstitutional aspects of Obama Care.

---

Judges

I don't know any of the judges on the ballot, except where it comes to the state Supreme Court. Although, when voting to keep someone in or boot them out, I'm always up for fresh blood getting into office.

The Supreme Court of Colorado is the important issue here. I'm a member of "Clear the Bench Colorado". The three judges up for retention have repeatedly abused their positions and turned their backs on the Constitution in favor of 'activism from the bench'. They MUST be ousted.

Vote NO on retaining:
- Michael L Bender
- Alex J Martinez
- Nancy E Rice

---------------------------


So, if you're still with me after all of that, I commend you. You either have a lot of time on your hands, or you really care about voting about our laws and our officials. As you should. Because you're an American Citizen, and you have no right to complain about the government putting its boot on your neck unless you get out there and vote.

______________________________________________________

So here's a cheat-sheet:

United States Senator - Ken Buck
Rep to the 112th US Congress District 5 - Doug Lamborn
Governor - Tom Tancredo, American Constitution Party
State Treasurer - Walker Stapleton
Attorney General - John Suthers
Supreme Court, Michael L Bender Retained? - NO
Supreme Court, Alex J Martinez Retained? - NO
Supreme Court, Nancy E Rice Retained? - NO
Amendment P - NO
Amendment Q - NO
Amendment R - YES
Amendment 60 - YES
Amendment 61 - YES
Amendment 62 - NO
Amendment 63 - YES!!!
Prop 101 - YES
Prop 102 - YES
County Question 1A - NO!!!
County Question 1B - YES
County Question 1C - YES
County Question 1D - YES
Municipality Question 2A - YES
Municipality Question 2B - NO
Municipality Question 2C - YES
Municipality Question 300 - YES!!!
Municipality Question 2D - NO

______________________________________________________


By the way, if you'd like to see the actual ballot, you can view a PDF here:

http://car.elpasoco.com/NR/rdonlyres/2F ... ballot.pdf



Vote for Liberty, Colorado!


]]> Politics http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.php?entry=entry101015-142946 Eddie Patin Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:29:46 GMT http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/comments.php?y=10&m=10&entry=entry101015-142946 http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.php?entry=entry100924-032542 http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010 ... co-gov.php


Sorry to say, but Dan Maes has fallen behind Tancredo. I supported him, I believed in him. I don't know if the scandals were lies or anything else, but I keep my eye on the main objective and persevere.

We MUST defeat Hickenlooper. We must.

So I have changed my vote to Tom Tancredo. I don't agree with the man's methods of fighting Dan and coming in late, but he's climbing up there, and has now passed Dan to be in Second Place. We can only hope that Dan will be watching to keep the evil of the Left out of the Gov's Seat, for the greater good of Colorado. And hope he drops out and sends his support Tom's way when the right time comes.

We MUST put a Conservative in the Governor's office. Or Colorado will be trampled by the Liberal Agenda for the next two years with NO resistance from our state's leader.

So again I am saddened, Dan Maes supporters, by the way things have turned out, and by having to change a position I felt so passionately about, but we MUST join together to defeat the Hick.

Vote for Tancredo.




Make Colorado a FREE STATE! - Defeat Hickenlooper!!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=120921514621244]]> Politics http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.php?entry=entry100924-032542 Eddie Patin Fri, 24 Sep 2010 07:25:42 GMT http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/comments.php?y=10&m=09&entry=entry100924-032542 http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.php?entry=entry100901-233716 tancredodotorg@gmail.com
info@tancredoforgovernor2010.org

Campaign Office
Tancredo for Governor
9600 E Arapahoe Rd.
Suite 212.
Greenwood Village, CO 80112

Tancredo For Governor 2010
202 N. Avenue # 2010
Grand Junction, CO 81501

---


Mr. Tancredo,

I'm writing to thank you for your service to the people of Colorado in the past, and to implore you to do what is best for our magnificent state in this 2010 governor's race.

As I'm sure you know, Colorado is in a unique swing status right now where we can either be moved more towards a 'liberal-type' state under Hickenlooper, who will be a rubber stamp for the anti-freedom Obama agenda, or in a more Conservative/Libertarian direction under a proper Conservative governor.

I remember you announcing that you'd be entering the race if the polls were not in favor for the GOP candidate. Today, I implore you to apply the same strategy to yourself and, if the polls show that you cannot win, drop out of the race in the same manner you suggested from Maes and McInnis.

Colorado CAN defeat Hickenlooper and the encroaching influence of the Left. But it's looking to me, sir, that you cannot win. And all you're doing by your continued participation is dividing the Conservative vote that could otherwise defeat the Democratic candidate. You may be a great Conservative, but at this juncture, you are the Ross Perot to the 1992 Presidential Elections. Your cause is true, but if you continue your present course, you'll be personally guaranteeing Hickenlooper's success--and that brings much more dire consequences than 'just another Democrat'.

Please drop out of the race and support Dan Maes. He may have his problems, but, with your support and endorsement, Dan Maes is the ONLY possible way to defeat Hickenlooper and beat back the Obama Administration's influence on Colorado. If you look at the polls, your supporters and Dan's supporters could win by a large margin, if only they rallied behind one man. And Maes has the numbers.

I love your stance on the issues, and I'd support you in another run for the presidency, but please drop out of this race, because you're only hurting Colorado.

Thank you for your consideration, and I sincerely hope you do the right thing.

I, and many other Coloradans, are depending on what YOU do for the rest of this race.


In Liberty,

Eddie Patin
Colorado Springs, Co

]]> Politics http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.php?entry=entry100901-233716 Eddie Patin Thu, 02 Sep 2010 03:37:16 GMT http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/comments.php?y=10&m=09&entry=entry100901-233716 http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.php?entry=entry100901-233005 (Continued from the thread at OpenCarry.org)
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... n-Carrying


Zach and Kingfish have been laughing about the 'check' issue...

---

Zach:
Guess I should have added a sarcasm smilie.....
Looks like Maes knows the political game after all...

---

Me:
Yes, the smears continue, and it obviously works. Look at all the smirks and 'yep, I knew he was just another politician', as if that wasn't the intended effect. You guys are being played.

We must still defeat Hickenlooper. He is far worse than whatever imperfections may be going on with the Tea Party Candidate.

Do you really take the Denver Post seriously? Come on. The liberals are threatened by Dan, and they're playing hard to hit his PR.

---

Zach:
...
Honestly Maes may be better than Hickenlooper, but that doesn't mean he gets my vote. The reason Maes has not had much bad press is because he was not a viable candidate until he won the Primary. IMO he only achieved that because McInnis is a bigger mistake.

If the Republican party wants to be taken serious they need to stop running these types of candidates out.

Take off the rose colored glasses and constructively take a look at everything going on. The Libs aren't threatened by Maes, they are licking their chops. They would love nothing more than several unknowns to run for Gubernatorial seats nation wide.

---

Me:
I don't understand, Zach. Why would you say 'he doesn't have my vote' if the main goal is to beat Hickenlooper (if you value your freedoms, anyway), and there is NO POSSIBLE way Tancredo could win? What's the point of nit-picking and talking about 'being taken seriously' instead of rallying behind the only hope of stopping approaching evil (sorry if that's too dramatic)? Why care about anything other than rising together to stop the threat?

Look at this madness:
http://coloradoindependent.com/60190/sp ... ys-in-race

The polls were last at Hickenlooper:36% Maes:24% Tancredo:9%

24+9=????

We MUST stand together, and spread the word to help make Colorado a free state.

---

Me again:
re:"...Dan Maes has not had much bad press is because he was not a viable candidate until he won the Primary..."

In case you weren't paying attention before the primaries, he's had LOTS of attacks. Mainly from the repeated mantra, pounded into our heads by the media and his rivals, "Dan Maes can't win". I mean, his enemies used search engine optimization to where if you typed in "Dan Maes..." on Google, the top suggestion was "Dan Maes can't win".

Someone ran a robot-caller campaign saying that he was dropping out of the race just before the primaries.

He could have still won without McInnis's ethics scandal--they were both surrounded by dirty attacks.

The reason he won was because of the support from Tea Party folks, grassroots, and people spending their free time trying to campaign for him and grow votes wherever they could. I tried to help, and hope I helped a few people vote for him. And if everyone put in the effort, (and Tancredo dropped out), we could beat the Hick. That's where Dan's strength comes from--people throughout Colorado that believe in him and fight for him.

He seems Conservative enough for me, I saw him speak at a Tea Party rally and liked him, and I'll take him at his word about the (concealed) 'Constitutional Carry' bit, so I'll support him, even if it seems he might lose. 'Cause what else is there if Liberty's side is likely to lose? To bitch and moan? Stay home? If enough people vote ANYWAY, despite everyone in the media telling us that he can't win, we'll have the numbers and we'll save Colorado. And I won't have to move to Wyoming. ;)

---

(to be continued...)]]> Politics http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.php?entry=entry100901-233005 Eddie Patin Thu, 02 Sep 2010 03:30:05 GMT http://www.eddiepatin.com/pblog/comments.php?y=10&m=09&entry=entry100901-233005