U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 26, 2010 03:36 AM UTC

U.N. Denver Takeover Discussion Thread

  • 46 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: Almost-live photos of the invasion peacekeeping operation after the jump.

As U.N. bicycle forces occupy the city this evening, proving Dan Maes right once and for all, please send your photos to webmaster@coloradopols.com or post them as comments below.

Really, comrades, it seems tough now, but soon you’ll forget you ever needed a car.

Granted, these fine fellows aren’t restricted to U.N. bike rallies:

Photos forwarded by Colorado Pols readers

Tweet
Share

Comments

46 thoughts on “U.N. Denver Takeover Discussion Thread”

  1. And to the evil world Gubmint for which it stands,

    One nation, under Allah,

    Republicans in death camps,

    While we suck their money through a straw.

    – Me, just now (you can plagiarize me)

        1. and no, it’s not completely lacking truth. You should see the textbook that my sister has to teach on climate change (she just got a T.A. job, even though she’s still an undergrad).

            1. It’s all just left wing propaganda. In fact I probably will go through it an explain all the inaccuracies. And math is science. Who do you think runs all the climate models?

                1. The models attempt to simulate natural processes. Their ability to do so can be measured against observations. Thus, there is an objective basis for judging algorithms.

                  Math is not science. There is no scientific method whereby multiple hypotheses are tested against observations. In math, you start with a set of assumptions, and through logic establish relationships. It’s all internal. There is no test against independent observations. Thus, in math, only the logic is tested; the assumptions are not.

                  In science, the best hypothesis is the one that best explains the data.

                  BTW, Beej, how old do you think the Earth is? Several billion years or something else?

                  1. the math department at my school is in the College of Natural Sciences. At my undergraduate school, it was in the College of Arts and Sciences. Math is science, in fact it is the language of all science. Of course, I don’t expect you to know a lot about math, but mathematicians work in many scientific fields, including climate modeling.

                    As far as the creation vs. evolution debate, we could start another thread. (Actually, that was one of the philosophy classes I took as an undergrad, although I’ve spent much more time than that debating the subject.) I do think it is Biblically plausible that the earth is billions of years old. I do not believe, however, that life occurred on earth any earlier than thousands of years ago. And yes, though this puts me at odds with many in the scientific community, there are respected scientists who agree with me – see Intelligent Design.

                    1. I teach science. I’m married to a climate modeler. Your first paragraph is all semantic and doesn’t address any of the points I raised in the previous comment.

                      As for the second paragraph: If the earth is billions of years old, then life is (at least) millions of years old. The evidence that is used to establish one is the same evidence that is used to establish the other.

                      Intelligent design isn’t science. In a nutshell, proponents of intelligent design throw up their hands and exclaim that they can’t understand how evolution could have occurred. Therefore, God did it: an untestable hypothesis.

                    2. Because it’s in some particular college department?  I suppose then that history is now art in many places?

                      Math is math.  It is a pure subject of its own.  Its tenets are not based on the scientific method, but rather on logical proofs.  If you’re an applied mathematician and you don’t realize where you have to switch from math to your chosen field of application (e.g. a science field), you need more school.

                      PS – like your wildly off-base presumption that I and others here were not Christian, you should probably re-think your chip-on-a-shoulder attitude about your math skills.  I went to college for Physics, and work in part as a computer programmer; math is my friend.

                    3. You don’t “switch”. Subject matter is a continuum, not a discrete array, at the graduate level. But I guess someone with an undergrad in physics wouldn’t understand that (or much math).

                    6. And be careful with that pomposity.

                      Given where you’re at now, I expect that my academic record puts your to shame.

                      But if your career takes you to Pasadena, enjoy the smog…and the traffic…and the other 20 million people in the LA basin.  

                    7. California jumped off the deep end a long time ago. That’s one reason I’ve got to do my best from preventing sissy-headed liberals from turning Colorado into the same. What is your doctorate in, ajb? Sounds to me like you never got beyond B.S.

                    10. In the meantime, look back at what I posted.  There is indeed a discrete cross-over from math to science.

                      When you are testing hypotheses, evaluating data, or designing experiments or models, you are doing science.  During that time, you probably use math (at least I’m hoping this, since you are being paid for that task…).  Math is a tool applied to science, not science itself.

                      And I really hope you’re just trying to yank my chain on the “physics undergrad” thing – perhaps standards at CU aren’t quite as high as where I went, but I had a full spread of Calc, plus DiffEQ, Matrix, Vector, Complex, Prob&Stats (Linear was mixed in at the time)…  Physicists do a lot of math.

                    11. Oooh you think you’re special because you’ve had the standard undergrad classes for non-math majors. Please. I teach all those subjects. Come back when you’ve had the full analysis/abstract algebra sequences and a whole lot of grad shcool. I hope you don’t seriously think you’re some sort of expert at math.

                    12. I’m a computer guy now, not a physicist – and not a computer guy who normally spends a lot of time with anything related to higher math.

                      I hope you’re a better teacher than you are a blogger – I’d hate to be one of your students if that’s what you think about people who haven’t specialized in math for their life’s work.  That was the point of this conversation, from my POV.  All of your education appears to have given you one thing – a chip on the shoulder – and left you devoid of the two things you should be good at given your Math/Letters background: logic and a capacity for understanding different points of view.

                    13. there is, no doubt, at least one bathroom in the College of Natural Sciences?

                      Want to tell us all how going to the bathroom is, therefore, a science?

                  2. the Bishop Usher calculations, since he seems a pretty strident fundamentalist in his preaching against evil-lution.  That alone ruins his claim to be a scientist.

                      Intelligent Christians, and the Roman Catholic Church, accept evolution and the rest while maintaining that God created the earth.  One simply assumes the big bang, or big whatever, was the tool, as evolution was a tool, of the creation.  The important thing is that God created your immortal soul.  The platypus is just something God created, via evolution, to prove she has a sense of humor.

                      There is no conflict between intelligent religion and intelligent science.  There is an irreconcilable conflict between religious fundamentalism  — the Taliban or the Beej — and human reason in any form.

                1. Math relies on fully logically provable axioms and theorems.  We are only awaiting some genius to come along and provide the logical stepwise progression from sine=opposite/hypotenuse and the sum of angles to the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture.

                  1. Prove that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.  It can’t be done (and, indeed, may not be true if the string theory, wormhole, exotic physics crowd is right.)  Math accepts axioms and postulates as unprovable.  It just tries to keep them to a minimum.  After accepting that minimum of unprovables, math constructs an internal system consistent with those assumptions.

                      Who knows.  In the real world, maybe two plus two really is five — which would mean that Reaganomics was right all along;-)

                    1. An ‘axiom’ – original definition and that used by mathematics – is something true at its face or worthy on its own.  It needs no proof because it is humanly defined (non-logical) – e.g. the commutative property of addition –  or readily apparent (logical) – e.g. when considering an operation between two items, the existence of both items is necessary.

                      It isn’t really possible for 2+2=5 – 2 is axiomatically defined as 2, 5 as 5, the addition operation as the addition operation and the equal comparator as the equal comparator.  Under those conditions, 2+2 is always equal to 5 (base 10), regardless of how much LSD you’re on.

                      And there is actually a classic calculus proof that the shortest distance between two points is a line.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

56 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!