Jump to content
I just found this slide show on the Denver Post website. Looks like a lot of people were allowed to bring their signs to the rally. http://photos.denverpost.com/mediacenter/2012/05/photos-mitt-romney-in-craig-colorado-on-may-29-2012/36680/
See slides 1, 5, 7, 11 and 14.
I would like the Romney campaign to explain why our two signs were not deemed to be acceptable to display at the rally. I wish I could upload the picture of our signs. Nothing offensive in them at all unless asking for justice is offensive.
Here's another sign-related issue. My husband and I brought signs to hopefully draw national attention to the problems associated with the sick nuclear weapons compensation program. One said "Help Sick Nuke Workers", the other "Justice for Sick Nuke Workers". The campaign folks wanted to see what the signs said. We showed it to them. We weren't allowed to bring them into the park and had to leave them up against the building. We were told no signs would be allowed. We were ok with that, if it was applied to everyone. However, we saw three signs on a table and about three more people carrying their signs. I went back and asked the Romney official about why and basically just got shrugged shoulders in response. I asked if I could take our signs in, since others are and were told no. I don't know if political rallies are permitted to limit the types of signs but this did take place in a public area. Anyone who knows the answer, I'd love to know.
On HR 347, please note that 388 Members of the House of Representatives passed this legislation before sending it on to the President for his signature.
Please check facts before making an assertion. President Obama did NOT cancel the National Day of Prayer. The Presidential proclamation can be found here:
President Obama also spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast in February.
I'd like to know the details of the negotiations prior to the city's offer being made to the VFW. The Friday article stated that the "...lease expired in 2009, Neu said negotiations for a new agreement with the city have been less than cordial." Understanding why the negotiations were "less than cordial" will go a long way in helping the public form an opinion.
I thought some might be interested in the US Dept. of Energy's Advisory Board's recommendations on shale gas development.
Wonderful news!!! Thanks for keeping everyone posted. Our best to you and Jane.
George and Terrie Barrie
It's rare that I comment on articles or opinion pieces, but I'm confused about the Editorial Board's concerns about this project.
Apparently, it is not the project itself, since you agree that it can provide 600 new jobs. And as a gardener, I would love to purchase vegetables and fruits grown in Moffat County that I cannot grow. Heck, once it is up and running, I may even apply for a job!
Is it the fact that the US Department of Agriculture is involved and you fear that this agency would be subsidizing this project ad infinitum?
The editorial states, "The USDA support could also be suggestive of a government spending wildly and a political climate that favors anything green."
How would that differ from the agency subsidizing other agricultural ventures, such as farming and ranching interests. Am I correct that these businesses do receive monies from the US government to support the bad times? How can you suggest that this grant is 'government spending wildly'?
Why are you concerned about the tax monies invested in Planet Yampa? Our local tax dollars should be invested in our community and businesses. If a major national company expressed interest in developing a facility in Moffat County that could employ 600 workers, would not the City of Craig and Moffat County do everything possible to make that happen, including offering tax breaks? Maybe not, but it is certainly within their purview to do so.
I think this is a very worthwhile venture to explore. And I am very happy the US Department of Agriculture realized that this idea is worth using our tax dollars for further development.
John and Jane,
Thanks for keeping everyone updated. The best to both of you and God bless.
Yes, DOE Legacy Management is limited to those facilities used to manufacture the nuclear weapons. For instance, LM is responsible, as I'm sure you have read, for the Maybell Uranium mine.
However, what caught my attention on the Environmental Justice webpage was the first paragraph (I wish I knew how to bold onthis blog). The sentence that begins with "Fair treatment means..."
What Is Environmental Justice?
Environmental Justice is fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people with respect to development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Fair treatment means that no population bears a disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal and commercial operations, or from the execution of Federal, state and local laws, regulations and policies. Meaningful involvement requires effective access to decision-makers for all, and the ability in all communities to make informed decisions and take positive actions to produce environmental justice for themselves.
I think this may be a resource to pursue. It may not pan out, but...
Last login: Saturday, January 17, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Craig Daily Press. All rights reserved.