« Tuesday Open Thread | Main | Last Day to Submit Questions for Bob Beauprez »

Comments

Mark Paschall

To USATERMLIMITS:
No! I believe term limits is an abridgment of our 1st Amendment right to vote for the one we want to represent us. An elected official is subject to term limits every time there is an election. Furthermore, have you observed the laws passed by "lame ducks?" Virtually everyone expands governmental powers and programs and the resultant cost of government. Here in Colorado, prior to term limits, the average life of a Legislator was 4.5 years. After term limits, the average is north of 6 years. The solution of term limits was worse than the problem.

If the people are unhappy with an elected official's performance, it is their right and within their power to kick them out! We don't need a law that addresses a symptom but not the problem.

Mark Paschall

To steve-o:
I am absolutely opposed to both Ref. C & D.
This amounts to a $3.1 Billion check from our pockets to the government's pockets over and above the growth plus inflation rate government growth is afforded by TABOR.
Isn't it interesting that the collectivists want us to believe that it is the RIGHT of government to grow and anything less than the stipulated rate (for Colorado State government it is a General Fund growth of 6%) is considered a "structural deficit." Under that standard most of us have been operating and managing our family in a perpetual "structural deficit!" How much worse for us, individually, if we give up yet another $3.1 billion (over the next five years) to government?
Yes, I will be campaigning in opposition to them.

Mark Paschall

To rightwinger:
Given the strict terms of your question, I pick the latter i.e. repeal the tax code.

I am decidedly Pro-Life!

col.klink

Mr. Paschall, I thought you were for openness and transparency in government. Why won't you release your discharge records? Do you have sometime to hide?

Also, I recall a story a few years ago about you having your background check run during a legislative tour and an arrest involving marijuana possession came up. Can you explain that for us, the story wasn't very clear. Here is an exerpt from one of the stories:

Be careful what information you seek. You might find out more than you want to know.

Rep. Mark Paschall, R-Arvada, is chairman of the new House Information and Technology Committee, which doesn't have many bills to consider. On slow days he sometimes takes the members on field trips to look at high-tech operations whose issues may end up in front of the committee some day.

Monday the committee traveled to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. Paschall ended up in the room that does instant background checks on would-be gun purchasers.

The curious Paschall volunteered to have his own record called up. Big mistake. Up popped an arrest in Aurora for marijuana possession on Dec. 15, 1972 - just a month after his 18th birthday.

Nothing serious came of the incident. The CBI report says he was released with no formal charges filed. But Paschall became alarmed about what goes into - and comes out of - computerized crime files.

He recalled the arrest vividly. He said he'd accompanied a friend from his construction crew to a party in Aurora. But the friend soon disappeared in Paschall's truck (he could start it without a key) leaving the future lawmaker in a house full of pot smokers.

In those days, said Paschall, he was "what you would call a Jesus freak" and neither smoked nor drank. While waiting for his friend to bring his truck back, he went to sleep in another room of the house.

He was awoken at 3:30 a.m. by a police raid, and was hauled off to jail with everybody else.

He vigorously protested his innocence, he said, and when the other party- goers admitted they had no idea who he was, the police let him go.

"There should be no record of this whatsoever," Paschall said Tuesday. " That's why I'm skeptical about these data bases. It could be damaging to me, and I wonder how many other cases are out there that will end up hurting somebody?"

The CBI report popped up just hours after Paschall had called up an immunization bill he didn't like two days ahead of schedule and had it killed.

Mark Paschall

To closetheborder:
If our government followed the Constitution and enforced our laws, the question would be moot. However, since our elected officials have neglected their #1 duty, your question is valid.
A wall is extreme! A sensible and effective policy would include:
1) the militarization of our land borders as our sea borders are;
2) denial of government programs and benefits to non-American citizens or foreign nationals;
3) punish employers who knowingly employ illegals.

Our American workers, skilled craftsmen, and laborers are seeing the American dream disappear before their very eyes to a people who have demonstrated their contempt for our laws. (Regardless of motives or origin!)

lt.klink

Why won't you come clean about your military service. Men and women are dying for our country and you won't share with us your discharge records.

From the Canyon Courier:

We learned that our former-state-legislator-and-now-county-treasurer, who has used his military service to bolster his electability, doesn't have quite the proud record he would have you believe. In fact, in a rarity for the United States Navy, Paschall's enlistment back in the '70s was "voided," which is curiously absent from his own publicity. Courier reporter Jonathan Ellis asked a Navy spokesman if he could come up with any conceivable reason for a "voided" enlistment. His guess: "fraud." The spokesman said Paschall's "voided" enlistment -- which the treasurer attributes to bad legal advice -- is the only one he has ever seen after 40 years in the Navy.

Mark Paschall

To Confused:
You will remain confused after my answer.

As long as the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution is subjectively interpreted under the jurisdiction of a "results-oriented" Supreme Court, even Colorado's D.O.M.A. is at risk.

If I am elected to Congress, I will work with my former collegue, U.S. Representative Marilyn Musgrave, to insure the U.S. Constitution is not violated or circumvented.

Mark Paschall

To Marshall:

If you read the 2nd Amendment, it is clear that the right to keep and bear arms predates governmental powers, Federal, State, and Local.

Regarding Marriage and to save time, please refer to my previous answers.

Vet's_Wife

Mark - up to now I've been a bit of a fan, but now that I read more about your discharge, you're really starting to cause me serious concern. Either you have something to hide, or you don't. My husband (a combat vet) and I have discussed this many times; there is a difference between an honorable, general and dishonorable discharge. Which is it for you?

Mark Paschall

To thinkin:
I don't need to pledge, my record speaks for itself. I am committed to the protection of innocent human life.

wexford98

To All - especially ColKlink -

I took it upon myself to ask Mr. Paschall to view his military record since I am a citizen of the county and he graciously accepted. I, too, read the news article by the Canyon Courier during the time that he was dealing with Lawrence and Sheehan.
The DD214 I PERSONALLY viewed showed an honorable discharge. I think ColKlink is following the journalistic responsibility of Dan Rather.

Mark Paschall

To Vet's Wife:

I invite you to come my office and I will show you my DD214's and answer any of your questions.

As far as I know the Canyon Courier obtained these documents illegally, because they did not get them from me, nor did I authorize their release.

Col.Klink

Weford98 - Gee, some random anonymous poster on a blog saw the record, let's take her/his word for it!

Mark Paschall

To all:
Thank you for your questions and involvment in the political process! Isn't it great that we can have this kind of discourse and guard each others dignity?
God Bless!
Mark

wexford98

Col Klink-

The media has a better reputation?
Then take Paschall up on his offer and ask to see it yourself - then why dont YOU report back to the rest of the site that you were wrong and so was the media.
Yes, that's a challenge.

colorado vet

There is no good reason for a candidate to conceal his military records.

I would vote for an ind. or maybe even a dem. before voting for a man who is not being open and honest, and I think most republicans feel the same way.

wexford98

To Quote Klink-

Oh yeah, like I'll believe a random anonymous poster on a blog site is a Republican Paschall supporter who just changed her views and decided not to take a look at the record for herself. Nice try. :)

Rebel Rep

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Kerry say anybody could see his military records at his office too!?

Come on, if this guy was waiting to recieve a report from his "exploritory committee", they should read this blog and tell him he is screwed!

I guess ROD won't have much competition this time. This Q&A has secured that much. Is Paschall taking PR tips from Lamm? What's in the water over there guys?

Phoenix Rising

I think that O'Donnell needs to haul himself in here for a session; if he's not willing to answer the questions, he's not gaining ground relative to Paschall in my eyes.

The Math

After reading this exchange I had to laugh. Mr. Paschall's answers to these questions are just down right strange!

Did anybody notice when he was asked about being "of government" for the last 11 years he pointed to working in the private sector going as far back at 1970? By my math that would mean he was 15 or 16 years old.

So all those summer jobs count, I bet there are a lot of politicians that would be happy to hear that!

marshall

The reason Paschall's answers are strange is because is speaking in very criptic phrases meant to only be understood by the Dobsonite cult. If this sounds weird read this article about Bush, Republicans do this all the time.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108083/

Take this answer as example

-------------------------------
As long as the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution is subjectively interpreted under the jurisdiction of a "results-oriented" Supreme Court, even Colorado's D.O.M.A. is at risk.

If I am elected to Congress, I will work with my former collegue, U.S. Representative Marilyn Musgrave, to insure the U.S. Constitution is not violated or circumvented."
----------------------------

I dare anybody to try to decode this answer. It is full of phrases that only the Dobsonite cult is going to understand.

wexford98

Marshall,
PLEASE ANSWER THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA JURY QUESTION!
Please explain to me the term dobsonite and how Paschall's response to the Consitutionality of Marriage applies...

wexford98

The Math -
scroll down - I think you are Marshall. You'll see Paschall worked for over a decade in the finance field which is private sector. Hmmm...how about some of your democrat contenders....

Phoenix Rising

Paschall says:As long as the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution is subjectively interpreted under the jurisdiction of a "results-oriented" Supreme Court, even Colorado's D.O.M.A. is at risk.

If I am elected to Congress, I will work with my former collegue, U.S. Representative Marilyn Musgrave, to insure the U.S. Constitution is not violated or circumvented.
Translation:

So long as the Supreme Court has members who are willing to rule in favor of the plain intent of the "full faith and credit" clause (Art. IV, Sect. 1) of the Constitution - i.e. that States must respect the official rulings of other States (e.g. marriage licenses) - the D.O.M.A. will not prevent the entrance and recognition of married gay couples to Colorado.

If Paschall is elected, he vows to work to violate and circumvent the plain language of the Constitution to prevent someone from "violat[ing] or circumvent[ing]" the Constitution.

This kind of rhetoric works well if you don't read the Constitution, but it doesn't hold up with good lighting.

A

Wexford, you make a good point. Instead of determining guilt or innocence, we should move to nullify the jury if we disagree with the law. My misogynistic beliefs have always led me to believe that domestic violence is not only okay, but sometimes necessary. I’m just happy to learn that the constitution supports my position, and that I will never have to convict someone unjustly!

The comments to this entry are closed.