One-sided drivel
The Oct. 10 Rocky Mountain News article, "Report: State losing millions/Low
severance tax on oil, gas drilling costly to Colorado," was interesting until
one gets to the bottom of the second paragraph where it acknowledges that it was
based on a totally biased report by a one-sided organization - the
"Carbondale-based Community Office for Resource Efficiency, which promotes
renewable energy sources and green building techniques."
For me, a one-sided article is, on its face, not worth reading - one does not
know what is truth and what is slant.
It is apparent to me that too many articles are supplied to the news
organizations and the reporters are happy to use their copy so they do not have
to do any work to fill the paper with this type of one-sided drivel.
Dudley Martens, Arvada
Dudley, you should have known from the title and the word taxes, that it was one sided and some group wants higher taxes to support their needs.
just listen to ritter or hick and every other word out of their mouths is we need to raise taxes.
Nice job Dudley.
I read the same article but didn't catch the flaw. I did notice, however, that the article didn't mention the energy-rich Roan and Vermillion being "out of bounds" along with the huge tax recipts that they could provide Colorado. With energy prices skyrocketing, you would think that Ritter would be screaming to tap into our resources instead of tapping into taxpayer wallets with a blizzard of tax hikes.
Too bad a reader like you had to do the job that should have been done by the lazy (deceiptful?) reporter who served as a biased spokesperson for CORE's agenda . No wonder why newspaper readership is off, circulation is down, profits are plunging and layoffs persist. The MSM has lost its monopoly, and that's good for America. Have you checked the stock price of The NY Times lately? Its down the mahoula, bigtime!
Posted by Hank on October 27, 2007 07:15 AMAhhh yes. The article was interesting until you found out who the source was.
Rather than counter the argument or take issue with the facts, you simply dismiss it because of your political opposition to the source.
No doubt attacking the messenger is much easier than discrediting the message.
And here comes Hank to spew the company line.
Bravo, you good little soldiers of ignorance...
Posted by Charles B. on October 28, 2007 07:52 AMOf course Charles never would do the same thing - he is always so even keeled that you not have any idea which way he leans.
Yeah Right!
Charles you constantly dismiss sources of information on these posts when they do not fit into your ideology, so for you to be calling out others for doing the exact same thing is laughable and quite pathetic.
Jack Bauer claimed:
"Charles you constantly dismiss sources of information on these posts when they do not fit into your ideology..."
Show me a single instance when I attacked a source rather than specifics of the information provided by that source.
You can't.
You just make sh*t up.
Posted by Charles B. on October 28, 2007 11:15 PMCharles has been sniffing too many farts, and not his own either.
Posted by on October 31, 2007 11:33 AM