Jump to content
"As far as the signs not being allowed, are you confident the other signs were approved by the staff or could they have been snuck in or not disclosed?"
I'm very confident that at least one sign was approved. I asked the woman who held the pink sign "Women for Romney" how she got her sign in, thinking that she snuck it in. She simply said "they" let her in with it.
Here's a link of photos. The pink sign is photo 31.
"I do not want someone controling my freedoms...its time to take back control..."
I imagine the First Amendment is one of the freedoms you value.
Would you be upset if someone from the Obama Administration, if not the President himself, came to Craig to deliver a speech on public property and you were not allowed to bring signs that didn't fit in with the "message"?
Would you be upset if you were told that no signs were allowed, yet you find out later that plenty of "on-the-message" signs were prevalent? Would you be upset that you were lied to?
That is exactly what happened to me and my husband. We were told by Romney campaign staff that no signs were allowed. Our signs were not anti-Romney, nor anti-coal, nor anti-anything. It was an attempt to educate Romney on an issue that he will face if he is elected.
Denying us the opportunity to bring our signs in not only prevented Romney of learning about an issue that affects tens of thousands of his potential electorate but also violated my and my husband's right to free speech.
I want to go back to Tuesday morning and take back my freedom and not let someone else control them. But I can't.
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.
Last login: Sunday, May 17, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Craig Daily Press. All rights reserved.