Caplis goes too far

John Falsetto, Arvada

Published September 20, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

Comments

September 20, 2008

6:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

SanctuaryCity writes:

Caplis is doing a great job pointing the problems of B.O.. obama is not a leader, not experienced in anything and thinks there are 57 states in the union. B.O. stumbles on the telepromter maybe not understanding the rheteric coming across it.

So John, simply put, obama is easy to berate, belittle and critize.
I view obama and the regressive welfare party as a copy of casey anthony, they continue protraying lies and false hope. There agenda is socialistic and their tax cuts are a mirage as their socialist programs are going to cost you dearly. If B.O. is remotely elected, collapse is inevitable. I GUESS THAT WILL TAKE THE HEAT OFF TAX CRITTER AND amnesty ken
September 20, 2008

7:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

tiero, many thanks for repeating that inane post for the umteenth time. Of course, you've yet to educate yourself on what socialism is. How do you like the real socialism now being practiced by your boys, taking over ownership of the drowning ships? But I realize that is different; it is socialism only for the very wealthy. Privatized income, socialized debt. Your letter talks about costing us dearly and about a collapse under Obama. Haven't had a chance to read the papers lately?

Caplis is simply doing what the McCain campaign is doing, throwing a hail mary pass out of fear and desperation.
September 20, 2008

7:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

grandpaw,

***tiero, many thanks for repeating that inane post for the umteenth time. Of course, you've yet to educate yourself on what socialism is***

Again you have chosen to question tiero's definition of "socialism" without stating your own "educated" definition. Please! No cut and paste definitions from the dictionary. What does "socialism" mean to you?
September 20, 2008

7:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

Now Mr. Falsetto knows what it is like to have listened to the newspaper and television media 'bash' president Bush for the last eight years.

I have never heard to much critical negativity in my life. It has split and is destroying America.

Does anyone have a solution how we can come back together in harmony???
September 20, 2008

8:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

LetsThink,

As long as the political parties chose to ignore the corruption and lying within their own parties and continues to only attack the opposition, nothing can change. We are in dire need of Statesmen/women who are more concerned about the well being of our country, then they are about getting reelected and building a larger power base within their own branch of the government.
The more power we give these politicians, the less power the "people" have and the greater the changes of of unfettered corruption to take place. All politicians need to be held directly responsible for their actions or lack there of.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.”
September 20, 2008

8:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

This is an election season Mr. Falsetto. Nothing is different now than it ever has been going back to the founding of this country when votes were bought with whiskey, lies were told in the papers, and fist-fights were the order of the day - until they escalated into duels! God how so many know so little about the history of the country they claim to love and cherish. Should it be different? Yes. Should we be able to conduct ourselves better? Yes. Will it happen? Probably not. Democracy is ugly and anything but polite and organized. If you want polite and orderly, then maybe Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq (pre-US invasion), or Syria might suit you better? Elections and political discourse are very polite in those countries - if you can find any at all.
September 20, 2008

9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Micheal,

What a sad state of affairs! You are saying: Sure politicians lie, and buy votes sure, but that is the way it has always been, so why should we change things now. Maybe that is the "change" the people of this country should be demanding and holding the candidate to those standards. This corruption, lying and stealing from the public coffers are the reasons we are in the mess we are in today, and I haven't heard any of the candidates trying to correct this behaviour, instead they just continue down the same path.

The "change" I would like to see would be to have honorable and truthful politicians working in our government for the well being of everyone and not just for their own personal or party gains.

This attitude about the system is not perfect but better than any other is just an excuse to do nothing about trying to improve things.
September 20, 2008

10:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

snowfall writes:

John, I agree with you. I enjoyed the show so much several years ago and now find myself turning it off more often than not. Craig has more credibility because he is not so rigid in his political beliefs. He will at least listen to the other side and acknowledge Obama's short comings. Dan is unable to hold McCain and Palin to the same standards he applies to Obama. I laugh when Dan says Craig has his partisian goggles on because Dan is the one that never gives an inch. His arguments are always factual and logical and true and everyone else is a bonehead. He is a disciple of Rovian tactics. Say something often and loud enough and people will think it's true.

Yes, I know! I can turn the dial, and that's what I'm doing more these days.
September 20, 2008

12:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

jdg: "What does "socialism" mean to you?"

Thanks, jdg. I thought you'd never ask.

Part 1 of 2:

People correctly say we have capitalism in the United States. But having capitalism is something like having religion. It can cover a multitude of saints and sinners. What kind of capitalism do we have?

We started out with largely unregulated capitalism. However, we found that predatory capitalism didn’t work because it begot such evils as child labor, unsafe working conditions, exploitation of the poor through long working hours and poverty level wages, unsafe food and drugs, exploitation of natural resources and the environment, deception of consumers, dishonest and fraudulent business practices, etc. It became clear that in order for capitalism to work in a fair and balanced way, it had to be socialized, that is, made fit to live among the people without exploiting them. That is why there have been laws and regulations to rein in raw, unregulated capitalism.

It is still capitalism, but it bears little resemblance to the predatory capitalism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These various laws and regulations may be said to have the purpose of socializing predatory capitalism so as to make it fit for the general population in the same sense that we socialize children and animals so that they can fit comfortably into society without hurting society too much.

The genius of capitalism is that it gives people freedom to do as they want, so that their instincts for improving their own personal lot can result in improving the lot of society as a whole. In effect, it puts man’s greed to work for the benefit of all. But greed is not inherently concerned with the rights of others, so, left untended, greed will find a way to exploit rather than benefit. It is like a campfire that initially warms people but, left untended, reaches out to devour the forest, or like a wild horse that can be of great service to man but only if it is socialized, that is, only if reins are put on it to control it.

So, laws and regulations are put in place are to rein in man’s greed, to socialize capitalism so that it can benefit society without exploiting it. Socialize in a sense similar to the way owners socialize dogs, prisons attempt to socialize criminals, and juvenile detention facilities attempt to socialize delinquents so that society can benefit from their presence without being victimized. Domesticate, civilize and tame might also be used to describe the process.
September 20, 2008

1:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Part 2 of 2:

Because of this socialization of capitalism, we now have child labor laws, wage and hour laws, industrial safety laws, food and drug laws, business regulation laws, securities regulation laws, environmental protection laws, usury laws, deceptive advertising laws, consumer protection laws, etc.

Capitalism has proved its worth. It has catapulted the US into first place in world economies. But it is not the predatory capitalism of the past but the present socialized capitalism that has given the United States its greatness. Keeping capitalism socialized is, however, an never-ending process. Greed cannot be eliminated, only controlled and channeled. So greed will continue to look for ways to exploit, and we must continue to look for ways to regulate. The examples of this are legend: Chrysler, Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Tyco, Imclone, Adelphia, Halliburton, Bear Stearns, AGI, to name some of the more publicized cases which have cost taxpayers billions of dollars and have cost thousands of employees their jobs and their life savings.

It should be no surprise that the extremes of capitalism and socialism don't work and that what works is a middle course. It has ever been thus.
September 20, 2008

1:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

OG,

I was just reading about how Obama will solve issues and problems. The first one I read about and the most disturbing is how much power he will be giving the unions. Secret ballots will be a thing of the pass, it will be against the law for companies to hire replacement workers during a union strike, and companies will be required to pay for employee's health care. In addition the company will be required to increase the number of general leave day for the union member and top that off with raising the minimum wage laws. And after all of these requirements are finally met, Obama is going to raise the corporate taxes on that same company.

Now I can see how you would consider that a "reasonable compromise", however I doubt the company will be feeling the same way.

One other program I thought was rather interesting in how it was written. From Obama's website: "Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama and Biden believe that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue."

In a nutshell "new revenue" means for every new program they dream up, the taxes on the "rich" will have to go up.

I will ask you, if 10% of the population owns 70% of the capital and pays 70% of the taxes, how much more do you and the Dems feel that 10% should have to pay in taxes before you feel it is "fair"?

I believe close to one Trillion dollars in new programs are being proposed by Obama/Biden, exactly who is going to be responsible for paying for those programs?
September 20, 2008

2:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

popo writes:

Wechasa and grandpaw,
Great letters! I couldn't agree more.
"Pretty-boy Danny Caplis has been a lacky for right-wing extremists for years, and KOA has done a good job of following the "Hannity & Colmbs" format of pairing a loudmouthed, over-the-top water carrier for the right with a meek, so-called Liberal pus*y, who, on a GOOD day may get 5% of the programs' airtime while Caplis and Hannity spew their venom at will for the other 95%.

While driving through Utah , Wyoming and Nevada a few weeks back, I tuned into the AM stations and was none too surprised to find that the only stations available featured Rush whats-his-name and Sean Insanity.....I remarked to my wife that the "Wal-Mart-Moms" out there had no other alternatives for information on their radios.

The "Fairness Doctrine" scares the hell out of Rush, Sean, BillO, John McCain and Danny-boy Caplis because of one thing....simple greed.

If I were them, I wouldn't want to "change" anything either, because all five of those clowns fall in the "Richest 2%" catagory.

But, if you're like me and the OTHER 98%, it's time we elect Obama and put Americans....REAL Americans first.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.....VOTE OBAMA/BIDEN.
September 20, 2008

3 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

***But, if you're like me and the OTHER 98%, it's time we elect Obama and put Americans....REAL Americans first.***

That is the problem with you liberal/socialist you don't consider someone who with hard work and long hours became successful in their field as REAL Americans. Some of the people you are talking about started from humble beginnings and made their fortunes, sounds to me this has always been the American dream.
Now all of you liberals consider those same people as not REAL Americans and nothing but a big piggy bank that you can steal (sorry, tax) from.

McCain/Palin in 08
September 20, 2008

3:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

Friends
I view 'taxation' essentially as stealing (by group agreement).

If the wealthy person has committed a crime, punish them. But don't take money from honest, successful peope and give it to people who may not have worked as hard.

God gives us a better way than humans have deesigned. The Bible teaches that every person should give 10% of their income to support the church (pastors, building expense, outreach, supplies, etc.).
That is the ony fair approach. A poor person can as easily give 10% of their small earnings, as a rich person can give 10% of their great earnings.

What do you think of this idea, and my concern with 'stealing' (taxes)?
September 20, 2008

3:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

OG,

***Please don't jump to conclusions as to what I might see to be "reasonable compromise". I have seen the proposal. And, as I think I stated earlier, the success of politics lies in achievement of a "reasonable compromise".***

What are the odds there will be any "reasonable compromise" if we have a Democrat President, House and Senate?
September 20, 2008

4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

popo writes:

jgd,
We've all seen what happens when "Republics" are allowed to watch the henhouse for 6 years.

Endless wars, unbridled greed run amok, jobs lost, record foreclosures, billions of dollars given to "no-bid" contractors, Americans left to fend for themselves after natural disasters (see "heckova job" Brown),Corporate corruption at an all-time high, 400 of the richest individuals in the country given tax CUTS during a "time of war".

Shall I continue?

VOTE OBAMA / BIDEN, '08
September 20, 2008

4:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

popo writes:

jgd,
Have you ever had scars from working for a living?

Somehow, I really doubt it.

For your information, I do.

Your attitude reminds me of an old friend of mine born to a wealthy family from Texas and (surprise!) got their money in the oil "bidness".

He went on to become a worthless,cocaine-fried, pitiful excuse for a human being, but he still is taken care of by his still-wealthy family, who cheats on their taxes, lives high on the hog, and hangs out at the country club.

And, no, it's not George W. Bush
September 20, 2008

5:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Popo,

Based on your posting I would be willing to say I have done more work by accident than you've done on purpose.

I was raised in a small Midwest town in a family of 12 (Didn't even see a silver spoon). Drafted straight out of high school in "67" and spent two years in the army. Received by degree after returning to the States and have been working every sense. Had to work my butt off to save enough to help my two children get their degrees. Even worked at a 7-11 for a short time early in my working days.

I am not rich by any means, but I have been smart enough not to waste my money on all of the new toys and cars on the market. House is paid for and have a modest retirement program. With the exception of the GI bill which assisted me in obtaining my degree, I have never asked the government for a dime. I don't even look at the benefit from the GI bill as a gift, I feel I earned every dime of it.

The one thing I want to leave my children and grandchildren is a country where the American dream is still around and open to everyone who wants it. I sure as hell don't want to leave them some Nanny state where lying around nursing on the government teat is considered an acceptable career.

McCain/Palin 08
September 20, 2008

5:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

SanctuaryCity writes:

grandpew

Sounds like you saturated your pants around 1:00. Hey, thanks . If you want tax increases and false hope, vote for B.O then take an economics course along with some finance courses and the handwriting will be on the wall for you, maybe . I can afford it, can you.

I got some swamp land for sale, cheap, interested ? Good deal...
Forgive me, I didn't mean to talk like B.O and the dems
September 20, 2008

9:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

OG,
Your belief in our political system is indeed admirable, however it is seriously misplaced. For the last 8 years you and your ilk continue to blame everything that has happened on Bush and the previous Republican controlled congress. Why then should I believe a Democrat President and Democrat controlled congress would not have carte-blanc and do exactly what Obama proposes?
You mentioned about the check and balances in our system, sure hope you are not referring to the Supreme court. If my memory serves me correctly there should be one to three new positions opening on the bench, and with three more liberal leaning justices deciding the constitutionality of the laws and bills coming from the Democrat Congress, there will be no such “checks and balances”
The difference I see between you and me is I am willing to take a man at his word, and what I have seen and read on Obama’s website, frightens the hell out of me. His economic programs will in fact increase taxes on every man woman and child, living in the US. Oh, he may lower their income taxes, but his increases of taxes on corporations will raise the price on the vast majority of consumer products and services. Who do you think will have to pay those increased prices?
He foreign policy should frighten everyone, Obama will still be talking when the terrorists decide to strike again. Talk, talk and more talk with the threat of UN sanctions as the last resort, You have to be kidding. It is not wonder the terrorist countries like Iran, Syria and North Korean are hoping for an Obama victory.
You may believe his proposals will keep the Republic alive for decades to come, I believe it will last until the unions and taxes destroy or damage the companies to a point where they either close their doors for good or move out of the country. I doubt that will take for decades.
September 20, 2008

10:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

popo writes:

jgd,
Joined in '68 with my brother, did two hitches in 'Nam....was lucky enough to make it home in one piece, brother wasn't.
Joined Veterans Against the War as a tribute to my brother who I still feel was sacrificed on the alter of war-profiteers like Raytheon, Coors, Huey,and Texaco.
Had the pleasure of voting for the first time against Nixon, who was an S.O.B and lousy C.I.C. who didn't give a damn about we grunts on the ground.
Got a job as a hod-carrier, then cement finisher for Local # 458, went back to school after seeing the construction industry take advantage of your Saint Reagans assault on Unions in America, his turning a blind eye to violations of the Davis-Bacon Act, and allowing coporations to violate laws that prevented them from hiring illegals....and down south the floodgates opened.
My degree was in Architecture with an emphasis in Passive Solar Design....had a bright future 'till GHW Bush and Reagan pulled the plug.

Now we have wars for Arab oil sources , pipelines in Georgia, Afghanistan and Iran.

So jgd, I hope you have a better understanding why I will......

VOTE OBAMA / BIDEN '08 for SANITY AND PEACE
September 21, 2008

12:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

p_myers661 writes:

popo, OG

What a treat to see communication of opposing ideas with understanding and courtesy.

I believe Obama will be more likely to raise taxes and at the very least attempt to turn over too many functions to government management and control. That is not what I want for my country. I want peace and sense and a government that will limit its actions and programs instead of reaching for more power and more ignorance of people who will be lured into the false peace offered by governmental assistance.

Perhaps I can sum it up in a quote from the play "Teahouse of the August Moon."

The army officer assigned to be the manager of an Okinawan village tells his translator that the Americans are "here to help your village and its people."
The translator answers him, "many years ago Chinese come to help us. They take everything. Then Japanese come to help us. They take everything in village again. Okinawa people learn. When other countries come to help us we hide everything quick quick."

When the American government taxes people who earn their money by working for to so they, government can give it to those who don't work, the trouble begins. It was a limited, well intentioned new program. Like most government programs, it developed a life of its own. The careful assisting of the less fortunate among us morphed into money being paid to those who refuse to help themselves.
Obama will increase government programs because he believes that is the best way to govern. He thinks this will do good for people. He isn't trying to destroy anything, but the unintended consequences of his programs, I believe, will create more difficulties like Bush has created with his spend spend spend philosophy. (Bush's spend ....)

I hope, someday, to have another great conservative to vote for for any political office. Until then I'll vote for the least damage to our country from my viewpoint. Good day to you both. As I mentioned to others, if we meet on election day waving signs on the corner, I'll bring the coffee cake. You can bring the bottle.
September 21, 2008

10:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

popo writes:

hakj,
I hope you'll reconsider your decision, unless you're fortunate enough to be making more than $250,000 a year your taxes will be reduced.....If you are, then I understand.

I wouldn't want things to change either.

Most Americans aren't so fortunate, and are tired of lying, cheating bastards stealing our tax dollars and giving it to the well-off.

As I said Please reconsider, and VOTE OBAMA / BIDEN '08
September 21, 2008

10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Popo,
Sorry to hear about your brother and it does help me understand your hatred of war. Too many good men and women died in that damn war, I had a couple friends that went through basic with me that never made it back. War should always be the last resort in dealing with other nations or groups; however I also believe it is an option that should never be taken off the table.
When reading your post you seem to be placing the blame on Nixon for that war, you never mentioned JFK or LBJ the presidents who actually got us involved in it. Why is that? Then you went into Reagan’s amnesty for the illegal immigrants allowing them to fill Union jobs, but again never once mentioned Carter for actually opening the borders because of his lack of action.
You mention “Peace and Sanity” both should be the goals of every person in the world. Then difference I see in our positions is Peace to me does not mean just the absences of war. If your enemy is planning and preparing to attack we are not at peace, we are simply between battles or waiting for the start of one.
Pearl Harbor was a classic example; we were unprepared and taken completely off guard. The battle of the Bulge is another. Prior to the Tet offensive, things were fairly quiet in country, and we allowed Charlie to pick the time and place to attack. During the Clinton administration Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were probing our lines and defenses while planning 9-11 style attacks. Do you ever wonder what the world would be like had Clinton allowed the CIA to take our Bin Laden when they had the chance? Or what the world would be like today had the UN actually stood up to Saddam and demanded he follow the conditions place on him after the first Gulf War.
The point I am making is even if we pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq tomorrow, we would still not be at Peace. Iran and North Korean are building nuclear weapons and they are not for defensive purposes. Should we sit around talking while they develop those weapons, believing we are at Peace?
I don’t know about you but I have no desire to sit around waiting for the next attack, and if Al Qaeda follows their same MO it will make 9-11 look like a small fireworks display.
To prevent war, you must prepare for war
September 21, 2008

11:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

jdg: "To prevent war, you must prepare for war"

The United States has for years spent almost as much or more money preparing for war than the rest of the world combined. The only recent major war is the one started by the United States.
September 21, 2008

12:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Grandpaw,

Sorry I didn't know the men who flew those planes into the Towers, were Americans must have missed that during the news coverage. Any change you could send me the link to where you saw that information?
September 21, 2008

12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

OG,

I may not know all there is to know about the working of the Supreme Court, but on the other hand it is very clear, based on many of the Courts decision, it is in fact highly partisan.

There is no other reason for the four judges consistently deciding strongly supportive of the Democrat's understanding of the Constitution and another four deciding with the Republican's understanding, with Justice Kennedy being the deciding factor.

How is it possible for nine of supposedly most qualified Judges be so far apart with their understanding of one single document?
September 21, 2008

3:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

popo writes:

jgd, Thanks for your concern, but I need to remind Americans everyday that Vietnam was at war since 1946 as most don't know the facts, and I would hate for my son , or daughters, to re-fight a war based simply on ignorance of history.

And the reason I mentioned Nixon was because I was doing the bloody work, while he was seeing a "Light at the end of the tunnel", and had a "Secret Plan" for victory...We in the jungle knew that was bullsh*t.

I think we can agree on that.

As far as the "War on Terra" as our current President likes to call it, you're right again, but again, Iraq didn't declare war on the U.S.A, nor Afghanistan,, Bush, with scant and sometimes false information chose to create a scenario that included our Military and a "Shock and Awe" first act that helped destroy the empathy and support of most other countries previously with us, as they observed Bush's "Cowboy Diplomacy" that included the deaths of innocent civilians....precisely what the Terrorists did on 9/11,
and with todays' technologies all countries realize that "it ain't that hard to get a nuke" given proliferation and greed of the human animal....and, frankly, it scares the hell out of them, because they know, as JFK did, that there will be no winners in a global nuclear war.
They remember the accronym MAD...Mutually Assured Destruction.

We as Americans need to be able to agree to disagree, yet come together and get bad guys wherever they are....but we don't need to start a war every time some idiot wants to get to Heaven, or wherever by killing civilians....for ANY reason.

I also realize that Americans wanted to obtain revenge from the perpetrators of 9/11, but those as*holes took themselves out, along with nearly 3000 other souls,and you can't kill a dead man.

But taking out other civilian souls won't gain us any allies, and as we've seen, the Iraqi war that Rumsfeld said would take "6 days, maybe 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months" still goes on, and on,and on.

We are bankrupting our Nation...Osama Bin-laden would like nothing better, just as he, and the Mujuhadeen did to the U.S.S.R.

Let's not give him the sastisfaction.

And let's do it smart, not with a failed "Cowboy Diplomacy" that did nothing constructive, on many levels.

Peace, Popocatepetl
September 21, 2008

4:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

jdg: "Grandpaw, Sorry I didn't know the men who flew those planes into the Towers, were Americans must have missed that during the news coverage. Any change you could send me the link to where you saw that information?"

And I didn't know they were Eskimos. Please send me a link where you saw that.

Of course, I didn't say they were Americans and you didn't say they were Eskimos.

None of them were Iraqis. You know, the country we invaded because of 9/11?

Most of them were from Saudi Arabia. You may not have noticed it, but we did not invade Saudi Arabia.
September 21, 2008

5:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Grandpaw,

***None of them were Iraqis. You know, the country we invaded because of 9/11?***

9-11 was not the reason we invaded Iraq, it was because Saddam Hussien had violated 17 UN resolutions, continued to fire on UN aircraft, and refused to allow UN inspectors to inspect previously known WMD storage and production sites.
September 21, 2008

9:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Castle writes:

JOHN FALSETTO writes: "Whether you like Obama or not, no one deserves the barrage of criticism and downright hatred that Caplis spews forth daily on his show."

That any differnet that what the Obama campaign is saying about Gov. Palin AND her childeren? I guess not by your standards.

Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor

Caplis goes too far

John Falsetto, Arvada

Published September 20, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Letters to the Editor

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs