CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 09, 2009 02:56 PM UTC
167 Comments
But not because of Rush Limbaugh by any stretch of the imagination but because I’ve done my research and I’m not comfortable it’s safe. And I know pharmaceutical companies are frothing at the mouth waiting for forced vaccinations so they can make billions of dollars on a vaccination that may not work or may not be safe.
although I’m not sure what Rush’s fear of the flu vaccine is….I mean, a nurse has to administer it in a pre-packaged dose, so it isn’t like he could deafen himself with an overdose like he did with Oxy-Cotyn….
The swine flu vacine has some weird effect on pigs and in a moment of clarity he realizes that puts him at risk.
I heard someone call his show making fun of Gore’s son when he got into trouble with drugs.
Rush cut the guy off, and castigated him, and told the audience that he took no joy in others’ addiction and hoped he’d get better.
He’s apparently been clean for years, and has lost a ton of weight, and it seems the first or second response to anything he says is ‘fat….drug addled….’.
call screener. If he didn’t want the guy to get on the air, he would have never gotten on the air.
created via the same technique as any other flu vaccine so it’s no more or less dangerous than any other flu shot. Nobody is forcing anyone to take it and nothing is more normal than government health officials urging people to get flu shots. More Limbaugh big fat idiot blather over nothing based on the usual ignorance.
I’m not getting it either but mainly because I’m pretty sure swine flu is what I got clobbered with this summer so I got my anti-bodies the old fashioned way. At my age and as a healthy, later middle aged person, it was just a typical crappy lingering flu.
’cause I’d press it 1000 times for this comment.
1) It’s just another flu shot, same as any other. They’re proven effective, and they have well-known contra-indicators for those who shouldn’t take them.
2) It’s just another (miserable) flu, with one difference: no-one has immunity to it until they get either it or the shot for it.
I just recently saw some research where, in the sample group, most of the people who died “from the swine flu” actually died from a concurrent bacterial respiratory illness like pneumonia. The flu did little more than other flu illnesses – it came in and weakened the patient’s system. It wouldn’t surprise me if most flu deaths actually resulted from the same mechanisms.
I had the chance to talk to my kids’ pediatrician this week about this. He’s an old-school doctor, no herbal or homeopathic stuff for him. He’s been in practice for decades. He recommends all the vaccinations all the time. And he’s leery of the swine flu vaccine because of how it was rushed through development and testing.
He conceded that it may be just fine, but we don’t have any way of knowing it until millions of people have taken it first. We may see a lot of people come down with pneumonia.
He was glad of the fact that private practices like his are lowest priority for receiving the vaccine, so that we’ll know for sure if it’s safe when it comes out. “Let someone else be the guinea pig,” he said.
I’m hopeful that this is good stuff because it’s not like it is that different from normal flu vaccines. But I do believe even normal vaccines get a lot more testing than this stuff.
Each year, the same thing happens over and over: vaccines are made for the strains currently going around – which mutate. Each year, vaccine manufacturers put together a combo vaccine of what they believe will be the most common flu viruses floating around. The process is the same every year. Testing is pretty much limited to QC and dosing verification – the basics of the vaccine are pretty static.
The same process makes the 2009 H1N1 vaccine; the unknowns were mostly related to effectiveness. So it’s not like this vaccine doesn’t have a testing history – it’s the testing history of the general flu vaccine.
Did you know that this year’s and last year’s seasonal flu vaccine immunizes against H1N1 flu (Brisbane type)?
This is a mutation of pre-existing H1N1 flu. It’s genetically similar to the 1918 Spanish Flu. The vaccine is made in exactly the same way as every other flu shot is made, and I’m surprised/apalled that any doctor could display such ignorance.
Then again the anti-vaccine movement is so Palinesque, the whole thing makes me nauseous. I think vaccines are socialist, which is probably why the nutters hate them. Most people will benefit from them, a rare few will be harmed, but that risk must be accepted “for the common good.”
It pisses off the few for whom that phrase means nothing.
my doctor isn’t anti-vaccine. And he’s not anti-Swine flu vaccine either, just a bit leery. And you better state your own qualifications if you’re going to call him ignorant.
It probably pisses people off that predicting which flu vaccine to produce each year is a practical application of the scientific version of the Theory of Evolution.
Vaccine production must start long before flu season arrives. Thus, scientists must predict what strains will predominate at a future date.
Pretty cool, huh? Application of the Theory of Evolution results in protection of those you love AND serves the common good!
The fact that it doesn’t always work right gives the science-doubters reason to proclaim that evolution is just a theory.
That’s why it’s called the “Theory of Evolution.”
‘Nuf said!
Evolution is a fact.
Evolution “the mechanism” is just a theory (as if reaching the pinnacle of scientific thought was something to be scoffed at).
But, evolution “the observation that species are not immutable” is a fact seems to slip by some people.
But then, Ralphie, you know I’m not lecturing you. You’re smarter than this. (absolutely no snark intended whatsoever) I’m just talking out into the ether. 🙂
Go Rockies!
In the American vernacular, “theory” often means “imperfect fact”-part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is “only” a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can’t even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): “Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science-that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was.”
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Moreover, “fact” does not mean “absolute certainty.” The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms…
Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory-natural selection-to explain the mechanism of evolution.
I like Gould.
The analogy I use is gravity. We know it exists, we even have equations that describe its effect. However, we don’t know exactly how it works.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_…
This should be an interesting day on the blogs…
and the GlennBeck will be raging. I, for one, think it is a great call. I am very proud of our President.
The President is perfectly qualified to receive the Prize.
Seriously, what has he yet done that puts his accomplishments with those of Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson, the previous sitting Presidents to receive the Prize? You cannot argue that his achievements even approach this level. I honestly would find this to be embarrassing, being awarded something that once was so prestigious without earning it.
It will be very interesting to see if he will now raise troop levels in Afghanistan after this. Imagine him receiving the Peace Prize after sending an additional 40,000 troops in! The irony would be hilarious.
“The Nobel Committee lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama’s calls for peace and cooperation but recognized initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.
“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” Jagland said.”
Perception is a huge part of outlook. FDR didn’t cure The Depression immediately, but the voters liked the facts that he obviously cared and was trying out ideas.
He extended it. WWII cured the depression, and we’re left with cleaning up his unsustainable social programs more than half a century later.
Let’s hope the hopeychangey illusion that won Obama this award and tricked some otherwise rational people into voting for him is the only thing he has in common with FDR or what happened to the world in his final five years.
…it represents the extreme minor opinion of economists everywhere.
Just because the On-Air Right-Wing-O-Verse hoots and trumpets that a pure fact doesn’t make it so.
And it’s not a talking point. It’s a valid argument.
Here’s a great book. I thought the arguments were well thought out and presented.
…and not even an economist.
The same guy who thinks Theodore Roosevelt’s “Safe Food” policies was against Coca-Cola, and that his trust-busting against Standard Oil was an affront to liberty.
It’s the same as Oliver North writing a book about Commissioned Officer ethics.
Hardly.
A great source of talking points not based on anything other than wishful thinking- sure.
At best- an ok book
He trashes income taxes as the source of no shortage of problems- and while he mentions that less than 5% of Americans paid income tax at that time, he doesn’t mention that wages weren’t taxed so the income tax did not affect consumption. instead he argues that income tax discouraged investment in plant and productive capacity. When almost everyone acknowledges that over capacity and excess inventory was why corporate america didn’t invest in more production nor productive capacity. ANd Here is where WW2 really helped- (though the accepted conservative position at the time was leave Europe to the Europeans.)
.
come from folks who are not established authorities. Cf, Nobel Prizes, which exist to recognize those established authorities, who don’t get recognition from the public based on achievement.
(The winners are almost all truly great thinkers, but the whole Nobel Prize thing, regardless of the guilt trip over inventing TNT, is mostly for nominees who don’t win.)
Why do so many of the richest geeks drop out of college before they even make it to grad school ?
.
….the 17th Century Scottish Author wrote rewrote the book on Contemporary Naval Tactics because he played with tiny boats in a wooden tub fits into that.
A foam-mouthed Anti-Government Anarchist who works for a foaming-mouthed Anti-Government “think tank” who writes a series of foaming-mouthed Anti-government books does not.
Public spending for World War II cured the depression, including marginal income tax rates of up to 90%.
You were tricked into voting for Obama? Please.
A man who loses his grip on reality never notices it, because he spends all his time wondering what’s become of the rest of the world.
was after the elections of 1936 and the Republican heat was on to pull back. He did, and unemployment went right back up.
WWII actually proves the point that giving people jobs will help the economy. So why is it that this is thought of as different from non-military spending?
Hoover’s methods sure worked, didn’t they? (And I am aware that FDR did continue a couple of Hoover’s ideas, but that doesn’t give credence to the general plan of doing nothing.)
LB, leaving it to the market would have resulted in a socialist revolution. Thank your lucky stars that FDR was president and that he wasn’t a laissez-faire capitalist.
Just 76 years later! Ooh, snap! Hahahahaohohoohoohboohoohoowaahh sorry I just, I just love my country so much!
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the other New Deal programs that saved the capitalist system are “unsustainable,” then I wonder what kind of Ayn Rand fantasy world you live in. Oh, well, enjoy the rape scenes, they can be found in all the Randian fulminations.
…I’m a fan of 44. But I don’t buy the explanation given for his award.
Why? Nominations had to be in by Feb 1st. He’d been in office 10 days. He hadn’t done any of the things he’s being cited for, unless the Nobel committee rolled out the time machine they keep in the back and managed to take a peek at the future.
I believe it’s political – considering that this committee is made up of members selected by the Norwegian Parliament…and it’s mostly made up of Center-left types. I think it’s a post-Bush bitch slap more than anything else.
Personally, I wish he had been awarded this honor a few more years into his term. Now I think it will (slightly) influence his foreign policy decisions, esp the use of military force. Not nec. bad, but….
.
and the truth is, the Nobel Committee can select whoever they want, even if they aren’t nominated,
he was selected within the last 2 weeks.
This selection was an attempt to sway him to pull out of Afghanistan. Everything else stated as rationale is hooey.
.
To have our own president win such an honor is also a reflection of us, the people, and I for one, am pretty proud of this.
Also a good incentive for President Obama to stay on track.
weren’t you a little surprised? I mean I appreciate what Obama has done to return the US to number one admired country, pretty much instantly change the tone, improve all kinds of diplomatic relations and make me less likely to want to try to pass for Canadian abroad but it does seem a tad over the top at this early stage.
Usually a peace prize is given for some single very significant accomplishment, like a specific ground breaking peace negotiation, so I have to admit my first reaction was “huh?”. Still, it nice that he’s so wildly popular in Europe that they couldn’t wait to show him some love and I no longer need feel obliged to say “hey, I didn’t vote for the guy” next time I leave the country, as I did over and over in Canada during the dark Bush years.
but I totally get why he won and I don’t think it’s too early at all, considering the direction this country has been headed in for the last 8 years.
Since I’m lazy I’ll just copy and paste what I said over at Daily Kos although I really think Josh Marshall summed it up best.
“Change you can believe in!” Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
And showing the new leader of the free world appreciation for such a dramatic turn around certainly is valid even though his winning the prize this year honestly never would have occured to me. It certainly didn’t seem to be on anybody elese’s radar either. I first heard it second hand from spouse and didn’t quite believe it was a done deal until I opened my e-mail.
When I heard them announce it on NPR, I laughed out loud with delight and then looked at my cat, Emma, and said, “Oh shit, they are really gonna hate him now.”
And then I went back to sleep and damn near showed up late for work. And I’m the owner so that’s really not good.
just called me from Florida to indulge in some kvelling (loosely translated: bursting one’s button’s with pride) over Obama’s winning the Peace Prize. You’d have that he was one of her grandkids.
bright and early this morning. I had to tell somebody! I think it’s so cool that your mom called you–my mom hates Obama so I’m pretty sure she won’t be calling me anytime soon.
He was ready to break out the guns and join the revolution when the students were gunned down at Kent State. That’s how it started in the old country, he loved to remind us, with the students and workers uniting. We are quite sedate and moderate compared to grandpa. Not to mention way less scary.
God, fascinating. I wish you’d write a diary about your family. I love stuff like this.
we try not to bring anything up but the weather at family gatherings. We tend to give each other migraines. But I like to think of us as just another typical semi-dysfunctional American family. A lot more typical than the Cleavers in my experience.
After catching the news at 3 AM. After she heard the news she was suddenly a lot less annoyed that I woke her up.
“Hey honey, guess what ” – I usually get a whole can of sass when I do that and wake her up in the dead of night !
Yeah, the news has to be pretty big to wake somebody up at 4:00 a.m.!
Cool. Now let’s watch him bomb the crap out of Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan some more.
Or maybe we can see if we can piss of North Korea some more and maybe “peace” them into submission.
What a laugh.
but that’s what it sounded like to me.
There’s a barely audible ‘pfffft’ and their scales perform a little fluttery wave (beginning at the anus and moving up to the neck) and then of course, there is the googly eye finale.
Kind of cute. And entirely harmless.
like a little bitch.
A petulant little whiny ass bitch, at that.
It sure is loud if you can hear it all the way up in Estes.
Behave yourself. 🙂
I think I love you…
After all, he bested the Hildabeast last year. Don’t you give him any credit for doing that?
Do they even wear birkenstocks in C-Springs ?
“We think highly of the force for peace that is Pres. Barack Obama. America, maybe you should too.”
If the media, and everyone else, spent nearly as much time on those who work for peace as for those who work at war, it would be a great start.
During the ramp up to the Iraq war, the high school my daughter went to held a half time ceremony applauding those kids who chose to enter the military….the band, the principal, the whole works. I left the bleachers and asked for equal time to commend those who protest war and work for peace. I’ll never forget the look of confusion on the principals face.
He is running the Hillary entitlement campaign. I realize people do not learn from history, but …
McInnis is aware of one primary fact. His name ID is higher than Mr. Penry’s and he isn’t going to do anything that gives the young senator from Mesa County the chance to use joint appearances to gain recognition or draw a contrast with him. It is old fashioned smart campaigning by the leading Republican candidate.
By the way, I’m supporting Governor Ritter.
the usual reason for a bigger names avoiding debate.
That would be because Hilary only appeared at, what, 85 debates with the other Democratic hopefuls in 2006 and 2007? Your analogy is strained.
We forget so many times that America is part of the world and the world was frightened by the rhetoric and the preemptive strike of the Bush Administration. Anyone who traveled outside the US or had friends who traveled outside the US knew this.
What Obama did was, way back when, stood up to Bush and denounced the Iraq war; carried his platform to the people, and won. That took guts,( Howard Dean and David Alexrod). Obama reassured the world that America was still capable of promoting peace and that is what his election proved.
I don’t think we can accurately judge the impact of that on the world from inside our own political arena.
I realize the following is antecdotal but I have a sister-in-law who travels all over th world every year. While President Bush was in office she related to me many times how people across the globe had turned against the United States. Since last November, she has told me the world once again believes in America and believes we have once again returned to our traditions in world affairs.
…at the group dining table at a little Mexican hotel in 2004, there was a sudden chill in the air and its not because someone left the door open. After I expressed my opinion of Bush and the war, all was forgiven.
Two people who had Canadian/American dual citizenship said that they travel on their Canadian passports to avoid hassles.
so I suppose the embarrassment of freedom fries and pouring French wine into sewers is now forgiven. Can’t wait to hear form the righties all about how being popular in France proves he’s a nazi/commie/ secret Muslim/ foreign born/grandma killing SOB.
n/t
rock and roll, Charlie Chaplin, the Eiffel Tower and Albert Einstein. I’m not sure what LB’s point is either.
The right is now firmly post-patriotic, cheering for America’s loss of the Olympic games and booing an American President’s winning a Nobel Peace Prize and popularity with the international community. They love whatever is bad for America as long as they think it’s also bad for Obama and Democrats and hate anything good for America that might also be good for the president and his party.
Partisanship is to be elevated above everything, even if it means voting against banning business with companies whose employment contracts stipulate women can have no redress outside company controlled arbitration when they are raped and coerced by company supervisors holding them captive in cargo containers for 24 hours to compel silence.
The right either hates America for electing Obama and a Democratic majority to both houses or it believes that old saw about destroying the village to save it actually makes sense. In any case they are no longer to be trusted to have anything but the most evil wishes for America as long as they are out of power.
I know LB will say that’s Dems were as bad or worse during the Bush years but they have absolutely no documented evidence of that, especially where elected officials are concerned, where there are miles of video showing their side, including their leaders, for the ugly America haters they have become. Never thought I’d see the day when our LB would be so firmly in the haters camp.
I voted for him, with the caveat that he’d be fiscally responsible and post-partisan.
First month in office?
“Hey, I won”.
The largest spending bill in US history, rushed through congress and signed in an emergency fashion so he could saunter into Denver and sign it four days later – and the bill has been an abysmal failure.
Yes, I’m happy when he’s embarrassed by the Olympic snub because that was purely an ego exercise on his part to try to pay some of his corrupt buddies in Chicago back, and he was hammered for it.
The Dems were much worse during Bush. We can now have a pissing contest with lots of videos and quotes or we can just agree that we’re both blinded by our partisanship.
How about this? It’s been really partisan and nasty for many years, and both sides have had their crazies go waaaaayyyy out of bounds on some issues.
Although, I did feel a little twinge of love when you called me ‘our LB’.
🙂
As if it wasn’t bad enough he won (what kind of rude Democrat does that?), then he refused to offer McCain a co-Presidency, and on top of all that, he openly admitted he won! God that steams me! It just gets my goat!
They adore her. Anyone that adores Nina has my undying affection.
Just don’t give the French too much credit for having great taste in politicians.
…from when DeGaulle said he wanted all U.S. troops off French soil?
pour a lot of French wine down my gullet to protest Talleyrand’s mockery of the peace of Amiens, or something like that!;-)
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_1…
Why do some old horses believe they can over graze?
Reagan Republicans (aka average Jane down the street) reads this and wonders …. Gee why won’t this guy debate?
Why is McInnis so nervous about this getting “ugly”? Is McInnis’ only option to lashout during debates?
This really questions McInnis’ temperament to control himself on stage with an opponent?
What happens in the spring when Ritter asks to debate … will McInnis say no?
Just how will the GOP trust that McInnis can debate their opposition if he won’t face an audience with two other GOP candidates?
Weird, bizarre, goofy, lacking character … you bet it is. If the GOP doesn’t wake up they should plan to sleep right through 2010.
and another thing … someone wrote McInnis was going to piss away $500k on petitioning onto the ballot. WTF? Pissing away donors cash because you can’t get 30% of your own Party to nominate you?
Does this mean that Penry will have one of his shills don a chicken suit and follow Scooter all around the state hounding him?
I guess I’ll just lie down until the feeling passes.
http://coloradoindependent.com…
This is what Tom Tancredo thinks should be used against civilian populations to ‘terrorize’ them:
http://www.fas.org/programs/ss…
Will the ‘moderate’ Republicans call him out for the diseased, sick, little man he is?
Or will they instead ignore his call to break international convention and law?
This is what Tom Tancredo thinks should be used against civilian populations to ‘terrorize’ them:
http://www.fas.org/programs/ss…
Will the ‘moderate’ Republicans call him out for the diseased, sick, little man he is?
Or will they instead ignore his call to break international convention and law?
Do comments double post?
Not at any other blog, just here.
No better way to win a war than burn your enemy alive with napalm. And of course if you just happened to burn alive civilians at the same time with said napalm, what better way to win their “hearts and minds”….
Did Gunny and Tancredo happen to mention that we lost that war?
Way to win hearts and minds which is the only tactic with any promise at all in this type of war.
Not that winning is much of an option to begin with. When people argue which tactics have been used by foreign powers to put down insurgencies successfully, I wonder what successes they are pointing to. The fact that insurgency in one’s home turf is forever while foreign war/ quagmires end when the foreigners have had enough and go home is why European colonial powers are no longer in charge in Africa, Asia, etc. It gets old and the insurgents already are home.
Although Sherman never actually said it, “War is hell.”
Ever been on a real, live battlefield?
(or suggesting we do so) and using chemicals and incendiary devices against civilians is f**ked up. There is no justification. Send over Tommy Loony Tunes Tancredo to the ‘real, live battlefield’ and see how long he lasts. Chickenhawks.
where I suggested using chemicals and incendiary devices against civilians. Kindly point to where I did? I’ll wait . . . 😉
Ever been on a live battlefield? No? I have, and I have no problem seeing WP, napalm, fuel-air concussion bombs, DU, etc., used against enemy forces. Civilians, obviously not.
Really?
You have NO problem using these sorts of devices against fellow human begins?
Really?
Are you human?
I’m human. Perhaps you think our military should go into battle with one hand tied behind their back?
As I said, I have no problem with the use of WP, DU, fuel-air concussion bombs, napalm (although I don’t believe that’s in the US arsenal any longer, having been superceded), bullets, artillery, free-fall or guided bombs, etc., against enemy forces. Kindly note I do not support the use of such weapons against civilians.
Or do you believe that there is any difference as to whether someone is killed by a bullet, high-explosive bomb, fuel-air concussion bomb, etc.? If so, do please explain.
is the problem with carpet-bombing of napalm, using DU which remains toxic for many, many years–in areas where civilians can be presumed to come in contact, etc.
What’s your alternative? Because from a military standpoint, there is no practical substitute for a DU round that is not far more toxic.
I blame the leadership that thinks using weapons that, by their nature, result in high ‘collateral damage’ is appropriate and is strategically (as opposed to merely tactically) wise.
The point I was making in my original post is that people like Tancredo are sick. They enjoy laughing and mocking cruelty, yet they are too often put forth as having something of value to add to the debate.
I would hope that anyone would have a problem with killing another human being. Anytime.
This does not mean that I do not understand that sometimes killing another is justified, appropriate, even necessary.
But to say you have no problem with burning someone alive is, well, disgusting.
Ardy–
It’s safe to assume you’ve never been in any kind of firefight, right? When you are, the purpose is, quite bluntly, to kill the other side before they kill you. That is the harsh reality of combat.
As a member of the military, you HOPE that you are fighting the correct people–that they are an actual enemy, but that’s a decision that comes from the civilian leadership.
Please explain the difference between killing someone with a bullet vs. a bomb vs. WP or anything else, and why one is any more objectionable than another.
… why don’t you tell us?
I’d guess that collateral damage is the biggest difference. The more collateral damage, the more immoral it is. Kinda like gas.
I understand that war is killing. I don’t need any patronizing, from you or anyone else.
I apologize if I’m not being clear. I’m not arguing for or against any particular manner of killing human beings. I’m concerned about your statement that you have “no problem” with killing human beings (ignore the method employed for now).
But we lock up people who have “no problem” with killing other people.
I understand that in the middle of actual combat, it would be a bad thing to have compassion or “problems” with what one is doing. That is what all the training is about, so that one does not consider that there are actual living, breathing, thinking parents, children, teachers, doctors, etc, underneath that cloud of ignited vaporized fuel.
But I assume that, right now, you are not in the middle of a firefight, Automaticftp. And you still say you have no problem with burning people alive?
I would hope you would have at least a little bit of a problem with it. Even if you thought it was necessary.
Again, I must have missed saying I have no problem with killing people, or burning them alive. Kindly point to where I did? I’m waiting . . . So please stop trying to ascribe words to me that are not mine–you demean your argument and yourself.
Since I’ve not said I have “no problem” with killing other people (you just read that in all by yourself), your concern is misplaced.
And apparently you take a statement of fact as patronizing. From what you have written so far, and have chosen to not respond to, I take it you have not been in a battle? It’s very easy to be an armchair tactician; it’s quite another to have been there and be able to reflect on the actual reality.
Remember this?
I don’t see how I am ascribing anything to you that you did not write yourself. In this post above you very clearly say you have no problem using weapons that result in burning people alive. How else is anyone supposed to interpret this?
A wonderful thing. I said against enemy forces, and you now take that to mean people generally. Wrong. You apparently believe that it makes a difference as to the mechanism used to kill someone or you would not have referenced the use of WP and “burning people alive” as objectionable. Oh, wait–then you said “I’m not arguing for or against any particular manner of killing human beings.” Which is it? Methinks you are a bit confused.
In a war, it makes no difference how someone is killed–they are just as dead. Accordingly, no, I have no problem with using any weapon available to me as a (former) member of the US Army. And yes, in a firefight, I have no problem with killing those people who are trying to kill me. You may perhaps have a different opinion, but as I have surmised, and as you have not bothered to correct it, you have never been there. And that truly is something you have to experience.
What the eff are enemy forces? They are people. You know that, don’t you?
It doesn’t matter whether or not we consider enemy forces to be bad and that they must be defeated, using any level of force that is necessary.
It doesn’t change some hard facts. They are still human beings. Human beings who probably would rather be home with their families rather than trying to kill you. So (after the fact at least) I would hope that every human would have at least some twinge of misgivings about having to kill other people. Regardless of whether they are enemy forces or civilians. Especially if the method of killing caused the other people extreme pain.
To continue to claim that you have “no problem” with burning people alive is really scary.
You can try to change the subject to be about whether or not I have any first hand experience in the theater. Outside of this comment, I am not going to acknowledge your attempt at this diversion. You can surmise all you want, but this is not about me.
This is about you. You brought this up and you continue to insist that you have “no problem” with killing real people using any method you are told to use.
So the question remains. Are you human?
Ardy never said that; YOU said that ardy said that about you, but he never did.
Where did anyone encourage the use of WP on civilians?
Is there a difference in killing enemy troops (combatants) with a standard DU artillery shell or phosphorous?
Automatic ftp is right on this one, IMO.
The argument against WP used against enemy combatants is reminiscent of people asking the cops why they couldn’t have just shot someone in the legs or shot the gun out of a criminal’s hand instead of two in the chest and one in the head.
I am not arguing about differences in the appropriateness of particular methods for killing enemies versus civilians.
What I find disturbing is that Automaticftp claims he has “no problem” with killing others using a method that may likely cause them to burn to death.
In times of war we justify killing people using all kinds of creative ways. I’m not arguing whether or not these justifications are appropriate or not. I’m not arguing about how we distinguish enemies from civilians. I’m not arguing that a soldier must feel anguish for others in the middle of a firefight.
These arguments, if they exist in this diary at all, are based on selective reading or projection by you and Automaticftp.
Again, I find it disturbing that someone can (apparently flippantly) announce that he/she has “no problem” with burning people to death (even if they are officially designated as “bad” people by civilian leaders).
I just think that any human would, given the time for retrospection, have at least an eensy teensy twang of misgiving about the concept of burning people alive. And somebody who is taking the time to contribute multiple blog postings is, I would surmise, not in the middle of a firefight.
I would hope that most of us here would hesitate just a bit longer before hitting the button.
killing is ugly.
It is sometimes hard to separate the combatant from the non combatant, particularly the amount of hugging that goes on in asymmetric warfare (not to mention issues of material support).
I have problems with weapons built for cruelty or that kill civilians disproportionately, but it doesn’t mean that cruel weapons that kill civilians are without legitimate uses.
I tend to leave such things to professionals (except land mines–things need to be banned), and focus my efforts on the where, when & why of war rather than the how.
With that said, if I didn’t believe Tancredo was worth less than the dog shit on my boot, I would have commented on his racist Mr. Moto impression of burning Japanese and the cruelty he relishes.
Like Bush renditions.
Chickenhawk Tancredo must have been too busy with other psychedelic substances during the Vietnam War. He may want to ask Kim PhГєc about the use of such weapons and their effects. I have absolutely no respect for chickenhawks like Tancredo. And after the email chickenhawk Josh Penry sent my own Veterans group telling us that he supported Bush’s war but would have conducted it differently, this from a 20 something year old (then) who does not have the first clue about military matters, I would include Penry in the same garbage heap as Tancredo.
practices that are illegal according to international treaties we’ve signed? Didn’t think so.
Apparently, he didn’t mention his insanity ?
“War is cruelty, you cannot refine it.”
–William Tecumseh Sherman
This prize is not just for Pres. Obama, but for all of the American people for electing him.
Besides, not a bad consolation Prize, since we didn’t get the Olympics!
Good old RedState: It’s not about his race, it’s about his policies!
(Bloomberg) — The U.K. needs to invest as much as 200 billion pounds ($320 billion) in power plants and infrastructure in the next 10 years to secure energy supplies and meet climate-change targets, the industry regulator said. Domestic energy bills in the U.K. may rise as much as 25 percent by 2020 to help fund the spending, the London-based Office of Gas & Electricity Markets said today in a statement distributed by the Regulatory News Service.
“These are big challenges,” Ofgem Chief Executive Officer Alistair Buchanan said in the statement. “Consumers are already enduring high energy prices.”
Obama can earn some of his Nobel prize by addressing this looming issue forcefully. Can the U.S. both stay in perpetual war, AND solve it’s pressing economic and energy related problems? I think not.
From the DNC:
you are completely wrong about this, Middle, and adds that Dems were much, much worse under Bush. He told me so in a reply above. Sad what’s become of him, isn’t it?
Otherwise, I’ll start crying after reading some of his stuff here today. And no, I’m not kidding. He’s kind of breaking my heart today.
Certainly not my intention.
I’d like to leave it at that.
You can always email me if you want an explanation or clarification, or if you want to really light me up over something I wrote. Email is on my profile now.
That’s a deal. I’m inclined to disagree with my friends in private, not on a public blog.
http://voices.washingtonpost.c…
Yesterday, the House passed a defense appropriations bill by a vote of 281 to 146. Of the 146 “no” votes, 131 were Republicans.
of teh GAYS!
Help!
Nothing is too good for our troops (unless it involves supporting basic human rights for our citizens at home…)
….the GOP throws the troops “under the bus” and panders to the bigots in the pulpits?
constructed on Halliburton’s watch.
….they got mad that they’re going to send money to that dastardly organization Fisher House, which give military family members a place to live while their SM spouse goes thru medical treatment.
They hate the fact the DoD is spending money to help recently-separated Vets use their GI Bill at schools across the US who may not have had time to apply properly.
They hate that investigations and lawsuits can go forward regarding the contaminated water supply at Camp Lejune.
They hate the requirement for Public Disclosure of investigation of Contracting Fraud.
They hate that the Gov’t is trying to hold onto it’s ammunition manufacturing facilities, and preventing them from being sold to the private industry for a sweet profit.
And they esp hate that you can’t force the Mercenary Armies, er Contractors to stop their Binding Arbitration Clauses on Employees, which allow employees to murder and rape other employees without fear of being sued. (Because, you know, Al Franken wrote that.)
Does the GOP want to implode with Military and Veteran voters in 2010? They’re off to a great start!
Speaking as a pro-gay marriage Republican, why was hate crime legislation attached to a war funding bill?
and that’s no different than it has been for a while
Answer: All three voted against H.R. 2647, the conference report on the Dept. of Defense authorization bill.
http://politics.nytimes.com/co…
How’s that?
Coming from his district. His internal compass (or polling data of cd6) allows him to override the troops getting their funding for the small victory of voting against hate crime legislation for gays.
It was the purpose of attaching the legislation to the funding bill.
The Dems wouldn’t allow a straight up vote on just a hate crime bill because some of them would be forced to vote against it to keep their jobs.
Sometimes our political system is really sickening.
I see where you’re going. I wasn’t sure what Lamborn had actually done to earn the label, but that makes sense.
back in April, when Coffman sided with Democrats (and a handful of other Republicans) to approve the hate crimes law. Lamborn didn’t have any trouble voting against it then (and Coffman showed some real backbone bucking his bigoted brethren).
http://coloradoindependent.com…
Lamborn is generally an embarrassment.
I don’t think Coffman gets enough credit for actually having a brain in his head most of the time.
Still, that was in response to your contention above about Democrats not allowing a straight up-or-down vote on hate crimes. They already did, and House members are already on record with those votes.
Coffman is capable of doing that from time to time. Lamborn is not.
although I disagree with a lot of his policy positions. And I certainly have a lot more respect for him than the people on this abbreviated list of Chickenhawks who fought to not serve in our military:
Lamar Alexander, Samuel Alito, Wayne Allard, George Allen, John Ashcroft, Gary Bauer, Bob Beauprez, William Bennett, Michael Bloomberg, Roy Blunt, L. Paul Bremer, George W. Bush, Saxby Chambliss, Dick Cheney, Norm Coleman, Pete Coors, Tom DeLay, Mike DeWine, Brian J. Donnelly, Steve Forbes, Bill First, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Judd Gregg, Robert Hanssen, Dennis Hastert, Brit Hume, Alan Keyes, Ken Lay, Joseph Lieberman, Rush Limbaugh, Trent Lott, Jim Marshall, Mitch McConnell, Ted Nugent, Bill O’Reilly, Bill Owens, George Pataki, Dan Quayle, Mitt Romney, Karl Rove, Ken Starr, John Stossel, Tom Tancredo, Clarence Thomas and Paul Wolfowitz.
All sought and received draft deferments while supporting war.
He served more than two years active duty in the Air National Guard. I don’t like the guy, but don’t call him a draft dodger.
Bush indeed had a draft deferment while he was in college. He signed up for the ANG just before his deferment expired.
“I certainly have a lot more respect for him than the people on this abbreviated list of Chickenhawks who fought to not serve in our military:”
Many veterans, including me, had deferments while in college. But signing up for active duty certainly exempts one from your school-boy taunt of “chickenhawk.” Or do you think your hero Al Gore was a chickenhawk? He had deferments before he enlisted. You’re letting your hate for Bush blind you to the facts.
I know it must be embarrassing for you when your lies get exposed. You even spew further lies when you say that Al Gore was a hero of mine. On what do you base that? Oh, I forgot, you don’t need a reason to lie. As Vietnam Era Vet, I know all too well how that chickenhawk game was played.
Since we’re having a discussion on race, did anyone see this? How freaking great is Harry Connick?
He coulda just let it go, being all the way down under and all, but he didn’t. That is pretty damn stand up.
His father was a DA for Orleans parish and his mother was a LA supreme court justice. They obviously raised him right.
He handled this with such grace but managed to really make his point. Thank you, Harry.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_1…
….where he already has an arrest warrant issued for a parole violation.
http://www.9news.com/news/arti…
I really, REALLY can’t wait to see him in an orange jumpsuit and shackles, doin’ the perp walk.