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

50%↑

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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 25, 2013 06:28 AM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • 98 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."

–Dwight D. Eisenhower 

Tweet
Share

Comments

98 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread”

    1. Eisenhower was one og the best Presidents we ever had.  He would again, easily, if he could run now.  What would be AWESOME would be finding a candidate just like him.  But that candidate owuld have to run as a D because the GOTP would never allow him or her to win a primary.

    2. So you agree with President Eisenhower that we should end corporate outsourcing of our intelligence and military operations – end Halliburton/KBR's military services contracts, end Blackwater Xe Academi's security contracting to State and DoD. That we should vastly decrease the power of the military-industrial complex.

      And of course that addressing racial discrimination is something that deserves its own division within the Department of Justice, that "there should be no second class citizens", and that local mores should not override anti-discrimination policy.

      And as a Libertarian I'm sure you support the Eisenhower Interstate System.

      1. I have stated that I believe DDE to be one of the four best presidents in modern history.  Unlike the people you play with here, my views are much more measured, centered and rational.  In case you missed it, the four best presidents IMNSHO were Reagan, Kennedy, Clinton and DDE.   Note:  2 dems and 2 GOP.

        Although Dwight built the interstate system to move arms across the country, (I know this is arguable) I indeed like the result.  It open up the entire country for everyone.   

        I have never stated that I hate everything the government does.  I just abhor waste, ineptitude, obesity (both personal and government) and duplicity.  This is obviously rampant on both sides of the aisle.    

        I fear for my country.  I'm not sure we can save it.  

        1. Well – to move arms and provide a near-infinite number of landing strips…

          I think the fear about our country's direction is widespread. Indeed I think there are some people who want power who are manipulating our country via these fears, and by that manipulation they are preventing us from being the country we could be. And there's fear on "both" sides of the other side's actions, and as a consequence communication has broken down and the other side is dismissed where it shouldn't be… (Don't take this as a "both sides do it" quote – one side IMHO is far more involved in the fearmongering than the other.)

          For example, Occupy and the Tea Party both think things have gotten out of hand, and they see the same basic problem: the masses are being left behind by the powerful. (Yes, that's a very Marxist/Communist way of putting things – but I've heard numerous Tea Partiers say pretty much the same, if in different words…) One group comes at it from the economic left and one from the right, but both see the same problem. The Tea Party says "get government out of the way"; they believe government regulation is the reason corporations can't hire more workers or pay them more. Occupy says "regulate the corporations"; they believe corporations can get away with too much. Whichever side you believe, both groups – or at least the true grassroots members of each – would probably agree that government subsidies to corporations are bad.

          Another example: true Libertarians would probably say that abuses of the free market are controlled by the ability of the people to choose and to protect themselves in the courts. Progressives would say that the courts do not provide sufficient means of protection against corporate abuses and that government regulation is needed. The two groups could work together to enhance penalties for corporate abuses and possibly to ease access to the courts for regular people – though they'd have to either alter the Constitution or change the makeup of the Supreme Court to do so.

    1. This from someone who sees an innocent little boy, taking a nap while attempting to conquer potty training as porn.

      This from a supposed teacher that champions gutter ghetto slang above the English language.

      This from a passive-agressive stalker that is so obsessive, she reads everything ever written by someone in an attempt to defame.

      How is therapy going?  

          1. Me too.

            But……………………This has to be said, or I'll regret not doing it.

            This FB actually admits to being the author of posts (or a post) ridiculing and taunting someone who's grieving over the death of another person. As well as to a post containing the image of a child that strains common sense to see as anything but the most gutteral of  base human viciousness and depravity. That he admits it tells us this diaperstain doesn't even process the information.

            At no time has this troll presented rebuttal to fair debate questions. He never answers a post that challenges him to bring it. He ignores those.Just a nasty, albeit restrained, in comparison to his posts in some rotgut blog, angry, throw shit on the wall, see what sticks demeanor that betrays him as one sick, angry, defeated fuck. 

            This military service avoiding coward says "he fears for his country".

            Bullshit. He and his ilk ARE the problem with this country.   

            fishin'blues, where's that work you owe me? 3 assignments, plus proof of military service. But I warn you, "stateside patriot", "geedunk commando", "nintendo ninja", before you answer the military service question, remember  the  Stolen Valor Act. For your sake, be truthfull. 

            Tick tock asshole.

            Now, having said that, Here's to a civil discourse. I'm certainly in.

            1. I suppose people arguing with parking meters believe their behavior to be rational.  But what I find interesting about this P.O.S. is that he seems to imagine he is actually debating and providing something of substance.  I still want a real-world definition of the 'unfettered free market'… or I will just consider it more flatulent nonsense from a basement dwelling Looneytarian.  Now on to rational discourse! 

              1. The unfettered free market is a Libertarian ideal, CT. It has no regulation and is not held back from innovating because it is always doing The Right Thing. In the ideal, it isn't even bound by lawsuits, because in the past lawsuits and the public's moral purchasing habits have been sufficient to goad companies in to doing The Right Thing.

                The Libertarian ideal doesn't work on a large scale, in the same way that the Communist ideal doesn't work on a large scale – idealistic philosophies don't hold up to the variety of Humanity. There is no "real world" unfettered free market in a functioning society.

                2. Probably because the ideal by definition can't have material existence. That's what makes them ideal. They make the most worthy guideposts but the practical realities of the material world require practical adjustments.

              1. As a perfect example of the type liberal I referenced earlier, look no further than the response from the twit.  He is the personification of arrogant and pretenttious.  

                The "unfettered" market (read Laissez-faire capitalism)  sure worked well for the US when we first started this little experiment of ours.   Just because we have an ever increasing government control of the markets, which have undoubedly ruined the original economic system,  (we are certainly heading in a socialistic direction) does not mean that it wouldn't work again.  To say "There is no "real world" unfettered free market in a functioning society.",  may be a bit of a stretch

                I'll give you the Libertarian ideal may have difficulties on a large scale.  I would suggest however, more Libertarian influence and less Socialist influence might save the country.   

                1. This is the part where you look up  "tarriffs 1775-1828".

                  Explain how the Colonial/Revolutionary/early days of "our little experiment" square with your oversimplication (to say the least) of revenues/profits/taxes and an "unfettered free market".

                  Extra credit involves you comparing the tax rates of the late 1700's and early 1800's to today. Then compare Bush era to today. 

                  That's 5 assignments you owe me.

                  Are you just lazy, or simply out of your depth?

                  C'mon get a move on it. You're burnin' daylight.

                3. Yeah.  Back when Gen. Washington rode his unicorn into the field of battle to defeat the Japanese.  I remember it well.  But I was asking for a correlation of the 'unfettered free market' with reality.  Not more made up Looneytarian shit. 

                  1. I think most of you know that I was a Republican for 32 years.  Not the brainless kind we have today; I left over their obsession on God, Guns & Gay in the Musgrave hey day.  And although I am a usually-content Colorado Democrat, everytime I take a political test I come back as a 'Libertarian'.  But honest-to-God, I can not point to one single Libertarian anywhere that I feel like I have a commonality with, other than the Ron/Rand Paul position on the Drug War.  I've never been a one-trick pony so that one issue wouldn't be enough to lure me away. 

                    This thread has convinced me that Tom Tancredo found his true home last cycle.

                    2. Thanks, PR.  And for the third time, slightly left-leaning Libertarian.  I guess it's settled!  The good news: my dot is right next to Nelson Mandela.  All of a sudden I feel unworthy.

                       

              1. More chuck and duck? Another dodge? Bluffin' again?

                That's it?

                Come on, skeezix get that work done.

                Simple things for ya to look up. Argue your point if you have the sand. Back up the stuff you said. How tough is that?

                But I see you. All hat, no cattle.

                Tick tock asshole. 

            4. First off, assuming you are not a phony, thanks for your service.  

              Secondly, I have never served.  I didn't realize that was a prerequisite for speaking one's mind.  Is it?  If so, you'll lose the majority here. You might also consider there are other ways to serve one's fellow man than in the military.  Some would say, at much greater sacrifice.  But I certianly wouldn't want to try and convincce you.  Seems as though, your mind is made up. 

              I was 'of age' during viet nam.  Couldn't hear, couldn't serve.  One thing I noticed from my friends that returned.  None mentioned their service, non certainly bragged about it.  And I didn't hear one say, if you didn't serve, you have no opinion.  I guesss times have changed.        

              2. You're welcome. 1 tour, Vietnam, Ca Mau Peninsula, 1969.

                Thanks for being honest. Ours was a generation of "couldn't hear, couldn't serve" types that could have enlisted. The draft was different from voluntary entistments. jack kent, nugent, limbaugh, boortz, lamborn, romney, tancredo, and rove also chose to remain behind, then became conservative kill 'em all, love America patriots upon no longer being eligible for selective service.

                I name only reds as the republican party is supposedly "the party of national defense", just not defending the country with them! Vietnam "wasn't the right war. This one's different. A party of regular foriegn affairs experts.

                Anyway, you'r 1 for 5. Your answer's in the books.

                4 to go.

                I'm waiting.

                 

                  1. Good catch PR

                    Absolutely legimate question. I was wrong in just assuming he used a documentable, perhaps less than serious, condition to dodge.

                    FB, you have the floor.

                    1. roc:  I'm heading out.  Not going to give shit to a nam vet.  Why?  (All below range from good friends to very good friends to best friend)

                      d.  didn't make it back, g. shot off leg w/ shotgun – alcoholism and PTSD, j. (deceased) cancer -exacerbated by alcoholism and PTSD, j. (deceased) diabetes -exacerbated by alcoholism and PTSD, m. (brother to first j) just recently nearly killed himself on an ATV exacerbated by alcoholism and PTSD.  The first referenced j was somewhat like you (airborne ranger 1969).  He was a bit high strung.  We used to really get into it.  I couldn't figure out why he was liberal.  His brother (also referenced above) is a John Bircher – go figure.

                      If you and rising want to know why you will not get any conservative opinion here, it is because your little liberal friends act like a pack of jackals.  Address one point, it is ignored while the nine other jackals are nipping at your back.

                      For my part, I know I came in looking for a fight.  I have already admitted it.  I figure I did the liberals a favor.  They could use their energy to hate me, which gave them a break frrom their self-loathing.  Now they can all smugly claim they ran off another one.  Not true, but then when did truth ever enter into it.

                      I'm still not sure why you went on the "didn't serve – can't speak" rant.  You really should look up Libertarian.  I'm an isolationist.  I don't think there has been a legitimate war (dems have got us into as many as the GOP) since WWII.  18 year olds should not have had to see and do what they saw and did in Viet Nam.  

                      And cur – FU – there are other ways to give up body parts than in a war.   

                       

                       

                    1. Stop whining. PR was actually calling me off, you dolt.

                      Tell you what, go to your room, put on your jammys, and when you come back, maybe tedi bear cruz will read you a story.

                      Getting your ass kicked here by choice is your "sacrifice"?

                      Are you kidding me?

                       

                2. Tried to enlist in the air force.  They didn't want me either.  All of my friends were there.  I should have been there.  Son of a railroader from Nebr.  Do you think I bought my way out?

                  As to your "other four", do you think I am stupid enough to wade into at least ten unfriendlies?  No matter what I say or what I present as backup, it will be ridiculed.  Fair enough, I can take whatever comes my way.  I'm just not going to necessarily go begging for it.  Don't like it?  Don't care.   

              3. "You might also consider that there are other ways to serve one's fellow man than in the military. Some would say, at much greater sacrifice."  

                And those who say that would be FULL OF CRAP.  A greater sacrifice than those who actually served?  I suppose I'm underestimating the bravery and sacrifice of the Ted Nugent Pants-Crapping Squadron.  Or was your "sacrifice" bravely campaigning to keep people in conflicts that you were (legitmately or otherwise) able to avoid?  

                Saunter into your local VFW and say that. I dare ya. 

                 

        2. Is that what she was just trying to do?  (Come on – let's keep it honest.)

          I'll admit my already rough edges were sharpened at Westword where they not only allow, but incourage sharp retort and mutual abuse – see *donkeyhotay*.  The donk, by all accounts, was a paid shill introduced by Westword to induce controversy and start "spirited" dialouge.  (I bet some would call it bullying behavior and of course, those same people don't see it in themselves.)  The Phoenix NewTimes follows the pattern.  

          My utter disdain for the arrogant and pretentious liberal will likely not allow me to be civil enough for these pages.  Although I find that type liberal "liberally" represented here, I do not consider all liberals in that category and certainly not all Dems.  And unlike those outlined above, I don't consider the other side evil, just silly.  

           

          1. As you note – it's easy to get carried away in response to other posters. There have been a seeming stream of posters to this board like you who start off a bit strong and immediately draw fire in response. The result is – well, you've seen it in the past few days…

            Some posters on this blog definitely inspire you to grow a thicker skin, and some posters take a crapload of "spirited debate" thrown their way and remain.

            I do encourage you – see if things calm down a bit. You'll definitely get some critical responses, but you might learn something. I at least will try challenging you on assumptions and facts…

          2. FB – I'd love to hear more about 'Donekyhotay'.  Are you saying he is paid by Westword to shill?  Curious…I had a running back-and-forth with that useless jackass over a Westword article months ago.  He's a special class of slime.

      1. Almost "Newt-onian" . . . ala anyone who quotes me is a liar . . . seems that even these disgusting slime-molds have an abhorrence of what they're saying, even as they're puking it up . . .

  4. It blows my mind that so many of these pinheads down here in Texas think this publicity stunt by Cruz is some sort of heroic act. Particularly surprising is the blatant partisanship displayed by local news media. I can hardly wait to point my truck northward and get outta here.

        1. You might try looking at a broader range of sources.

          If my employer weren't paying a large chunk of my health insurance, I'm pretty sure I'd do better under the health insurance exchange rates than by paying the full rate for the plan I'm on. In fact, I'm pretty sure I'd do better even if I was healthy and ten years younger.

          The Forbes article compared the benchmark 2nd-lowest silver plan on the exchange to the price paid by people currently covered under individual plans. But of course far more people are covered now under plans that might not even meet the standards of a  PPACA bronze plan. In many states you couldn't get insurance if you had a pre-existing condition (Colorado has had a high-risk pool, but it's expensive); in most states if you suddenly became seriously ill, the insurance company could recind your insurance coverage – they pay you everything you ever paid them and call it quits; many plans had lifetime and yearly coverage caps; and of course many people are currently insured under catastrophic plans that have deductables in the $10,000 range. Of course these plans cost less than the PPACA silver plan – but these people won't be buying the silver plan, they'll be buying the bronze plan or if they're young the catastrophic plan. And then there's the low-income subsidies, and in many states the Medicaid expansion for those whose paychecks couldn't even sustain the bronze subsidized rate…

      2. I note, MB, that your source is not the Koch-funded NYC-based 'Manhattan Institute'  but relies, instead, on the primary source for Obamacare, Romneycare from the mouth of its creator, Willard himself.

        1. …and here I thought no one would notice!  I'm on Capitol Hill today and would enjoy watching the "SillyBuster" live and in person,  but I'm afraid the stench from the rotting green eggs and ham is more than I'm willing to endure for such an historic opportunity.  I'm guessing that since he's refused a potty break until just recently that Senator Vitter had a spare male, adult diaper in a drawer in the Cloak Room.

    5. Just keep your head on a swivel, eyes on the road, drive north,  watch out for the drunks, and stay safe. No need for them to know anything about you.

      Get back whole, Duke.

    1. Lies, damn lies, and statistics; wrong message, right poll.

      Using this simple number to say that liberals are going the wrong way is like saying that Americans oppose the PPACA. If you break down the numbers (and several polls have), it turns out that a double-digit portion of the survey respondents don't support the ACA because they think that Obamacare doesn't go far enough; combine those people with the respondents who support Obamacare and you get majority support for increased government involvement in the system. And that's just asking about Obamacare in general; tell them exactly what's happening – dispel their misconceptions – and the support increases even more.

      Same goes here. If you break down those poll numbers, most of them believe that the Federal government isn't just on the wrong track – they think it's broken. Most of them believe that we're not doing enough to help our economy recover.

      That number doesn't mean that liberals are on the wrong track – it means that DC's gridlock and polarization means that no-one's happy with the way government works today.

    1. Guess they're all phonies to some extent if you just cover the headline.

      But if you read the detail in the article, there are reasons for 'fake' followers aside from buying them as Mitt Romney was accused of doing in 2012. I deal with spamming and phishing professionally, and it's easy to believe that they'd infest Twitter in hopes of gaining information or followers of their own. They try to infest this website with their crap; surely the Twitter flock surrounding a politician is at least as fertile a ground as a statewide political blog.

    2. OK.

      Are you aware the "Daily Mail UK  is a British equivalent of the Americn tabloids "The Globe", "The Examiner", and "Star"?

      Do you understand the difference between news and unsubstantiated gossip?

      Do you read what you reference or just throw it up? 

  7. Half of the federal government is controlled by Republicans–conservative have a court majority and half of Congress… that means they control 1.5 of the three branches of the federal government. 

    1. They also have a large enough minority in the Senate to filibuster which they do endlessly so the impact is really more half. Not to mention that so many Dems for so many decades have been moved to right due to decades of conservative messaging success in defining terms and instilling in Dems a dread of being labeled "liberal" in the post Reagan era.  

      For so many years the Dem position was…. please don't hate us for being (God forbid) liberal. We're really pretty conservative, too.  And then they proved it by supporting lots of lousy conservative policy, like financial deregulation and failure to fund the upkeep of our infrastructure or stand up for the hard working middle class against the increasing hegemony of the elite.

      Conservative policy has dominated even under Dem administrations and with Dem legislative majorities for a very long time and we are living with the result.

  8. DDE was a socialist (by today's GOP standards):

    Fifty-six years ago, President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed a kind of universal health care.

    Eisenhower asked Congress for $25 million to fund what he called health "reinsurance."

    Under the Eisenhower plan, private insurance companies who extended benefits to uninsured Americans would be reimbursed by the federal government should they incur excessive loses. In a way, the government was insuring the insurers.

    Then there are the HIGHWAYS, my GOD can you say Josef Stalin?  They are NOT postal roads!!!!  When ideas first surfaced, under FDR, to build a national network of these unconstitutional federal usurption of dirt road authorities wielded by the states and counties, the 'patriots' were horrified!

    The president's political opponents considered the "master plan" to be "another ascent into the stratosphere of New Deal jitterbug economics," as one critic put it.

     

    1. Clearly DDE wouldn't be a Republican today. For one thing, in his day there was such a thing as liberal Republicans such as the Rockefellers and DDE was a self described liberal. 

      When today's Republicans bring up great Republicans from the past, even the relatively recent past, they are invariably referring to people who would have no place in and want no part of today's GOP.  Just try to picture trust busting, progressive reformer and conservationist Teddy Roosevelt in today's GOP.  Nope.  Not possible.

      1. Invaribly they are bringing up fictious re-imaginings of historical figures, like St. Ronald Reagan the Conservative Action Figure President ™ who (as Stephen Colbert explained) personally took down the Berlin Wall with his wrecking balls. 

         

            1. Gotcha CT.

              Here's one from reagan's failed mid 60's attempt to halt environmental protection of Northern California's Redwood Forest:

              Remember, he was lobbying on behalf of the timber industry.

              "A tree's a tree. How many must we be forced to look at?". 

               

        1. I watch Fox News for my comedy and Comedy Central for my news…  Actually, I posted that because 1) its frickin hilarious and 2) it is certainly true that the wingut wing of the GOP (which is basically all that's left, along with the robber-barons that are manipulating them) has an image of Reagan that certainly does not comport with historical reality–kind of like troll's idea of the 'unfettered free market.' 

          1. I agree. These idealogues like fb and nb3, if you can call these lemmings that are flailing away idealogues, are getting hammered here. The facts on the ground don't fit thier loonatarian frame. 

            It's interesting that somebody will ignore personal experience and take as gospel an ayn rand philosophy. 

              2. Well PR, have perused today's threads and it looks like your experiment in returning the exchanges to a more civil level has been somewhat less than successful where FB is concerned. It was a noble attempt but I hope you will be willing to concede that FB really does make it quite difficult. Not that we're all angels but….

  11. Had the internet, blogs, etc existed in '64 all of the catstrophic wailing about Obamacare would have happened then. But, it did happen as technology would allow. In '64 dire predictions were the norm. St Ron was hired by, I think Westinghouse, to make speeches and recordings opposing Medicare as the implementation of Communism in America. Every once in a while you can find an album of St Ron at an elderly person's garage sale/estate sale. I think that Medicare gave us St. Ron and without it he'd have ridden into the hills with a 20 Mule Team

  13. GOP to Obama:  Gut environmental and Wall Street regulations or we all die!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/house-gop-debt-ceiling_n_3988783.html?ref=topbar

    House Republicans plan to demand major perks for coal companies and Wall Street banks, alongside healthcare and social service cuts and a one-year delay in the implementation of Obamacare, in exchange for raising the debt ceiling until the end of 2014, according to a source close to the House GOP leadership.

    Presumably, their extensive laundry list of GOP fantasy legislation is their opening bid in order to "compromise" by settling for only 98% of their wish list.

    Now it's time for Obama to stand up and "Just Say No"

    1. Obama has already said he won't negotiate on the debt ceiling. That's not going to change now that they've set out a laundry list of demands.

      If House Republicans want to change government policy, they can do it by working with the Senate to hand President Obama budget and approprirations bills that he can sign.

      Now the scary part is that some House Republicans are apparently thinking of attaching the ACA delay to whatever the Senate returns to them for a Continuing Resolution. The Senate would not have time to act on such a change, and the government would be in a guaranteed shutdown mode.

      1. Agreed — the long list of items is exactly intended to test Obama's "No Negotiations" promise.  Hey if you don't ask, the answer is always No, right?

        And, yes, the GOP endgame has always been to ensure that the bill (hot potato?) is in the Senate's hands when the whistle blows.  That's why Cruz's ego trip threw off the GOP's timing.

  14. PR – nice try. I tried to treat this guy like a teachable human being, too, when he first showed up. You may have better luck with him simply by virtue of being male. I think he's playing you, just like he plays everyone, to see how far he can bait them, if  they will swallow his "hook", and give him the negative attention reward he craves. 

    You may want to look at how much energy you've invested today in fishingblues, how many opportunities you've given him to have a real conversation instead of just throwing out insults, how much oxygen in the room has been sucked up by this one person. 

    What have you or this board gotten in return? Any actual give-and-take conversation? Any political insights, honest reflection, insight, or just repetition of the same old talking points: liberals = bad, libertarianism = good, I have done nothing wrong, everyone's being mean to me. I've seen greater maturity and potential for growth in the adolescents I work with every day. 

    I have not led a sheltered life. I have had the fortune or misfortune to hang out with many people with serious mental problems. If you all (not just you, PR) have led a sheltered life, you may want to check out the symptoms of antisocial personality disorder, and see if it fits anyone you know.  

    I have to work for a living. I teach people who, for the most part, want to learn. I no longer have energy to invest in this person, and will continue to ignore his baiting.  I will also ask others to Please Do Not Feed the Trolls. You do what you feel is best. mj

    1. I'm with you. However there have been benefits as a result PR's quest for civility. I do think he's had a good deal of success in convincing most of us to dial it back a bit. And not just the liberal wing. I've even read a perfectly civil recent comment or two from Moderatus. Wrong but civil.  As for FB, no amount of good intentions is likely to make a dent.

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

33 readers online now

Newsletter

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