Disqus - Latest Comments for ErinRosa

Re: Math doesn’t add up in progressives’ complaints against Udall

ErinRosa — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 19:09:40 -0000

And here we go again with more hyper-sensitive indignation by David Sirota--something every writer in Colorado has no doubt become accustomed to. Here's how it works: David gets "outraged" over something, files a barrage of blog posts sans factual information, and when confronted with such errors can only sit down and pout and continue to disparage the source until he eventually moves on to someone else. It's an all too familiar dance, meant to feed his ravenous hunger for attention.

Frankly David, I'd say that TCI has much more quality in one blog post then you have in your entire "nationally syndicated column." Maybe you should try actually reading what Ms. Norris wrote, rather than frothing at the mouth like you did when you called for the head of Timothy Gienther while proposing no solutions of your own.

Re: Colorado Latinos turned out in record numbers

ErinRosa — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:12:21 -0000

It's not that simple. For one, there are already millions of undocumented people in the United States. What should happen to them?

As for your claims and trepidation concerning a “ multicultural society,” “open borders,” and “socialism,” there is not one iota of factual evidence to back those up, so I'll leave it at that.

If you really want to stop the flow of undocumented individuals into the United States you'll invest in a fair and just economy for all workers in North America and scrap the devastating affects of NAFTA.

Re: ‘Right-to-work’ committee fined over finances

thegrunt — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:16:00 -0000

If the answer is no, then YES on 47. This simply re-enforces federal law.

Amendment 47 will bring real employee free choice - it is pro freedom plain and simple.

Re: ‘Right-to-work’ committee fined over finances

ErinRosa — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:06:59 -0000

But are Mr. Hesterman and Ms. Daniels forced to join a union? The answer is no, under federal law.

Re: GOP candidate emerges in state senate race

ErinRosa — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:11:13 -0000

Thanks for your input. That's very interesting.

Re: New York Times: nearly half of Colorado voters requested mail-in ballots

ErinRosa — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 13:45:43 -0000

That seems right. I'm not standing in a 3 hour line!

Re: An additional $405,000 in anonymous funds goes to ‘ethics’ measure

ErinRosa — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:04:00 -0000

Secretive ‘clean government’ group dings Tapia in new ad http://tinyurl.com/3kucyj

Re: An additional $405,000 in anonymous funds goes to ‘ethics’ measure

ErinRosa — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:52:28 -0000

Stay tuned...they've started to run ads.

Re: Firefighters, cops speak out against controversial union measures

Jan Michel — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:14:40 -0000

I love the way you research your answers, using the grumbler's own quoted website. Keep up the good work, Erin.

Re: Weighting the presidential race: Skinnies for Obama, chubbies for McCain

ErinRosa — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:28:08 -0000

Chubbies for McCain? Heh.

Re: Firefighters, cops speak out against controversial union measures

ErinRosa — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:51:02 -0000

I'm sorry you feel that way, but the claims you make simply aren't supported by facts or evidence.

Amendment 54 reduces the political voice of labor unions and employee groups, and the veteran public servants I talked to in the story believe that it would affect their ability to lobby their employers for better safety equipment--two servants, who by the way, are doing all of their political work against 54 without a dime coming from Protect Colorado's Future.

To this day I have not seen one police officer or firefighter actually speak out in support of Amendment 54, 49 or 47. Why would they be for 54? It bans what political contributions both they and even their mother-in-laws can make. And that fact can even be found at the "clean government" site you link to.

I've always found it interesting that the Amendment 54 campaign claims to be about government transparency, when it won't even truly disclose where the more than $1.5 million in anonymous campaign funds used to bankroll the initiative came from.

They're not about transparency. If you read the text you'll see that it is a simple attempt to quash the political contributions from unions that may be favorable to political causes that certain special interests in the state don't like.

There are already numerous conflict-of-interest laws that already address contractor issues. For more information on that, just see the case of former Colorado corrections director Nolin Renfrow and how he got a state contract for the GEO Group.

If you have any actual facts or testimonials as to why Amendment 54 would help public servants bargain for safer equipment, I would of course, be happy to hear it. No money from Amendment 54 would go to safety equipment for public servants, and any insinuation that it would is simply wrong.

Thanks for reading.

Re: Meet Colorado’s anti-union ‘clean team’

thegrunt — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:54:52 -0000

Who would oppose Clean Government for Colorado?

Re: Meet Colorado’s anti-union ‘clean team’

ErinRosa — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:31:45 -0000

If you go to the Secretary of State's campaign finance tracker you will see that nearly all of the contributions are listed at coming from Colorado At It's Best, thereby hiding the true identity of the donors.

Please note that I never alleged that the Yes on 54 camp was doing anything illegal. It's just an interesting fact that they are running with the “transparency” message, when they can't even disclose their actual funders.

The Institute and their supporters are quick to to paint 54 as somehow stopping corruption, but if you actually read the legislation, it's really an elaborate political move meant to cut off contributions that would most likely go to Democrats. It is because of this fact and in the interest of truth that I will continue to refer to this proposal as anti-union.

You're certainly welcome to support whatever ballot measures you like, but skirting campaign messages and reporting the truth is important in all instances, whether it be with Protect Colorado's Future or the Independence institute.

I'm not exactly sure what “shady backroom deals” you're referring to, but if you have a tip about possible corruption in state government I'd encourage you to send it to tips@coloradoindependent.com.

Thanks for reading.

Re: New pro-Amendment 47 ads begin airing

ErinRosa — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:07:33 -0000

Yeah, because it's not like the Independence Institute created an nonprofit (Colorado At It's Best) specifically for the purpose of anonymously funding their judge term limit and anti-union campaigns to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. The union money may be coming out of state, but at least its known WHERE it's coming from. There's nothing clean or transparent about the "Colorado Clean Team." The Web site is a riot.

Re: Prison in Colorado is on lockdown, months after deadly riot

ErinRosa — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:46:05 -0000

West of 1-25. That's the line, isn't it?

Re: New pro-Amendment 47 ads begin airing

ErinRosa — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:28:57 -0000

Comment noted. I've clarified it. Thanks for reading!

Re: NRA takes aim at Obama in Colorado over firearms record

ErinRosa — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:54:08 -0000

Wrong. Ruger 10/22 and a .38 snubed revolver. And yet I'm still not going to join the NRA.

Re: NRA takes aim at Obama in Colorado over firearms record

Eric Maloney — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:13:15 -0000

Your one of the Obama Plants that he told to go out and lie about his record. NRA has protected our right to bear arms.

Your a traitor to this fine country by supporting a man who is funded by terrorists. Yes Obama is being funded bym Radical Islamic Extremists who hate this country and want to destroy it and to take away our right to defend ourselves against terrorists.

Re: NRA takes aim at Obama in Colorado over firearms record

fdyjfv — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:47:28 -0000

I don't believe you are "a proud gun owner and shooter". I am sure you don't have any guns , including BB gun , toy guns etc.
Your posts are so extreme antigun and anti NRA. You also supports the most antigun candidate ever to run for president of the usa.
A man you know will try very hard to ban all handguns and most rifles for civilians.
What "proud gun owner and shooter" would ever do that.

Re: NRA takes aim at Obama in Colorado over firearms record

ErinRosa — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:48:53 -0000

Moderate for who? Archie Bunker?

I respect their classes and qualifications (after all, what kid with a .22 didn't want to qualify as a sharpshooter and get a cool patch) but not their politics.

Re: NRA takes aim at Obama in Colorado over firearms record

mmm — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:07:11 -0000

The NRA is not out of touch , but you are. NRA is a highly respected civil rights movement and is very moderate too.

Re: NRA takes aim at Obama in Colorado over firearms record

Jim C — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:09:55 -0000

the NRA has backed Republicans and Democrats. The question is and should always be: What is the candidates position. Obama refused to sign the Friend of the Court letter in the Heller case. He has voted for every gun control bill that has come his way, both as a state legislater and during his short time in Congress. Forget parties, look at the person.

Re: NRA takes aim at Obama in Colorado over firearms record

ErinRosa — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:30:09 -0000

I'm a proud gun owner and shooter, but the NRA is so out of touch with those who believe in responsible ownership that they are reduced to this partisan hackery. This is why I am not, and will never be, a member of the NRA.

Re: Union campaign spends $3 million on media blitz

ErinRosa — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:55:57 -0000

Themselves. Their own income I mean.

Re: On ‘right-to-work,’ Rocky Mountain News report gets it right

ErinRosa — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:22:20 -0000

Yeah, I did.

There's no direct proof that the "pressure" changed the line on Amendment 47, but it is interesting, isn't it?