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%
August 21, 2010 03:03 PM UTC
156 Comments
This will wake you up
…why is there no Palin-Gingrich-Hannity outrage over Muslim services in the Pentagon Chapel? Perhaps it is because people in the military cherish and defend our Constitutional Rights, and they understand the importance of Religious Tolerance?
No flap over Islam at Pentagon 9/11 site
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_1…
I mean, I can’t think of a demographic more injured by the 9/11 attack than Pentagon Staffers, and yet no one is protesting in the hallways over Muslim prayers in the interfaith chapel.
Perhaps this is another example of the US Military doing the right thing in the face of social intolerance?
(You know, they let Darkies and Women in the Military!)
That the military is composed of a bunch of anti-American, commie loving, wusses. Unlike real men like Gingrinch, Hannity, & Palin.
love it David! HAHAHA!!!!
Is the Pentagon hallowed ground too?
You can’t miss any of the multiple memorials for 9/11 set up around the outside, at the point of impact, in the chapel, etc…
The Pentagon is the most butt-ugly government building ever created. It makes AF missile silos look like they were designed by Martha Stewart.
But the Pentagon will never be demolished and replaced by a Daniel Liebskind-style office complex and park. It’s the center of the US military, and it will be that way until the concrete walls crumble into dust.
Military people don’t forget it when they lose a brother or sister. They don’t need simpering chimp commentators to talk about “hallowed ground.”
We’ve got our own way of remembering things…
the Center of the pentagon was called “ground zero”. Based upon the known fact it was a nuclear target.
The term “Ground zero” is tossed around and misused.
As long as you fear something and act accordingly. the terrorists and conservatives win.
Conservatives = terrorists.
Great work.
…of the many faults of the Republican’t Party, the one most glaring to me is the lack of a positive message OF ANY KIND.
Heap on the repeated attempts by the GOP to stoke any fear or prejudice, regardless of how small or petty, leads to a political party operating along the same lines as a terrorist group –
Scare everyone into doing what you want them to.
Some General that got himself elected President had this to say about it:
“I would rather try to persuade a man to go along, because once I have persuaded him, he will stick. If I scare him, he will stay just as long as he is scared, and then he is gone.”
easy correlation.
republicans sure hate it when they get treated like they treat others.
LB, later in this thread you ask (DEM)losers in their lame duck sessions to not act like republicans would in the same circumstance.
sad really sad.
They’re just giving comfort and support to the enemy.
The Taliban leaders have to be absolutely LOVING how their useful idiots like Gingrich, Palin and Hannity have made it so that a relatively tiny fringe group of Islamic terrorists are now viewed in many ignorant Americans’ eyes as a billion Muslims.
the numerous “hallowed grounds” where we killed Native Americans and then developed. As I pointed out yesterday the local planning officials are those best able to decide the “hallowed” condition of a piece of property, or other conditions that make certain development unsuitable. They made decisons months ago to approve and those decisions, unless found to be corrupted, ought to stand out of respect for local authority.
If every area in every European and Asian city where tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians died in WWII bombings, had been declared sacred and endlessly argued over instead of rebuilt there wouldn’t be much but sacred holes in great swaths of those continents.
NYC is not the first or only city to suffer such an incident and the number of casualties pales in comparison to what many other cities have suffered throughout history. The idea that it’s only worthy of this level of endless angst and drama, that it’s only this sacred, because it involves Americans in an American city is getting kind of close to being offensive. Feel free to jump all over to me. You know…America hating terrorist loving liberal yadyadyada…
“Why do you hate America so much?” 🙂
I visited Hamburg in then West Germany in the 60’s about 20 years after we carpet bombed the place killing untold civilians. They still had a resentment of Americans which I can appreciate.
There is still a lot of hurting going on in NYC and people dying from lung problems who helped clean up the place. My suggestion is that people lay off putting a Mosque in other people’s face next to the site and in 10 or 20 years time when it is less painful or memories have faded have at it. They have the right to build it there, but sometimes it is wiser and shows more class not to put things in the face of those that are still hurting.
but you are being played. There are already mosques just a little farther from the site than this one would be, not to mention Muslims praying at the chapel at the Pentagon. Ordinary American Muslims should not be seen as putting anything in anyone’s face by having a center in a neighborhood where they have lived for decades. 300 Muslims died there on 9/11 too and to treat this community as if their very presence is some kind of insult or pollution is simply not acceptable. Period.
Funny how those who object so strongly to political correctness, making fun of those who are offended by “funny” ethnic jokes, etc. are suddenly all so sensitive to people’s feelings. I guess it all depends on who is being offended, the majority you identify with or a minority you don’t.
You really have no idea how deeply offensive it is to talk about Muslims, defiling a sacred site just by virtue of being Muslims, do you? Substitute “Jew” for “Muslim” and you have the very same dehumanization process started that made it possible for people who considered themselves decent human beings to go along with the Holocaust. Substitute “African American” and you have the same attitude that made it possible for people who considered themselves decent human beings to throw picnics at lynchings and bring along the kids. I can think of nothing more anti-American or indecent than labeling a Muslim presence in and of itself a pollutant, an offense against anyone, including the diverse victims of 9/11.
This does not replace a destroyed Mosque and any Muslim living in the area pre 9-11 still has available their previous place of worship. This is about a group that chose to put this Mosque next to the WTC site because of its significance and in my view will likely be funded by sources outside the US.
I do not go along with the “defiling sacred site” language etc or suggest they do not have a “right” to build it there. I think, particularly in religious matters, it shows an unfortunate insensitivity to the feelings of others.
I disagree with you. That does not make me a bigot. Your racial and religious strawmen are just that. I think the people pushing this would make the world a better place if they let hurt feelings heal, given the circumstances.
Realistically, it will not be built there anytime soon. This is about politics and not religion. Are you familiar with New York City and the building trades and their make up? The same folks that ran into the buildings to save people and died were their brothers and sisters. They still feel the loss.
What evidence do you have to support this?
And is money from outside the US always bad? I’m not sure the new WTC is entirely being funded with American dollars – are you?
You are right, H-man. The fact that you disagree w/ BlueCat doesn’t make you a bigot.
What makes you a bigot is your willingness to lump all Muslims into one category and imply by extention that, somehow, peaceful, American Muslims are connected to the the terrorists who attacked the U.S.
By that logic, James Dobson should be viewed through the same lens as Colonel John Chivington, who murdered 160 Native American women and children and old men at Sand Creek.
After all…they are both Christians.
I don’t lump all muslims into one category and imply they are connected to terrorists. In fact, I don’t believe that to be true. On the other hand having a right to do something does not mean it makes sense to exercise it at all times and under all circumstances. That is where we depart.
We should not allow any Catholic churches near children’s playgrounds.
Allow means right. Of course, they have a right to build a mosque on private property, if approved by local officials etc. Another famous “bigot” this morning also questioned the wisdom of building it there. It was David Gregory of NBC.
As an example of the distinction I have unsuccessfully been trying to draw, I have the right to shout out my opinion of a politican in a public place. If I came upon them with their family enjoying a picnic would I exercise that right? No, I would respect their family and not invade their privacy even though I had the right to do so.
as I never said a word about it replacing a destroyed Mosque. By seeing Muslims two blocks from the site as a de facto insult you demonstrate the most insidious form of bigotry: dehumanization of Muslims as a group. It’s insidious because you can’t see it.
I repeat there is nothing more anti-American or counter to basic human decency than declaring the very presence of a particular religious or ethnic group to be a source of pollution and/or offense. Period. Nothing. No matter how many excuses you find with which to dress that ugliness up. It’s still an abominable ugliness.
I’m sure you don’t mean it to be just as I’m sure Germans didn’t mean to be monsters when they started to casually accept that view of Jews. I’m sure they thought they were nice decent people with very good excuses for their acceptance of anti-Semitic propaganda.
said in a couple different ways. I won’t attempt to say it better. But I want to support what you’ve written and let H-man know that by refusing to “get” the reality of the issue, and continuing his insistence that these American Muslims intending to build a community center in this place constitutes an offense, simply because they share a religion with some murderers, he absolutely reinforces what he so vigorously denies. Flat out bigotry.
this paragraph should be read and re-read again and again until it finally starts to sink in.
No truer words in this entire debate. Thanks BC.
I have a crush on BlueCat
And If I weren’t a happily married old lady, I’d have a crush on you!
Us Fiscal Conservative men are passionate lovers, BC!
Perhaps in another lifetime? For now, your husband is a very lucky guy
If you are going to call me a bigot, I might as well respond in kind. I am not insulted by seeing a Mosque near ground zero. I am not insulted by seeing Muslims there or anywhere else. I indicated there are a lot of people in pain there and it would be wiser not to build the Mosque there.
You have no idea who I am or what is in my heart and you call me a bigot. You are fools.
I am Christian. My wife and daughter are Jewish. I have been in Mosques. I had a friend and business partner who is an important Sufi Muslim world religious leader who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. I have been with him when he gave advice and comfort. I have owned a business in a Muslim country. I have employed Muslims and currently have business partners who are Muslim.
I know something about religious tolerance and getting along with people of different beliefs. But the only conclusion you can come to, because I suggest sensitivity, compromise and getting along with one another, is to call me a bigot.
That is sad. You are sad. A closed mind is a sad thing. Unfortunately I can only conclude that your minds closed for business some time ago.
If you opened your mind a little bit, you might even learn something. By your definition, 63% of Americans are bigots. As you are all Dems, your buddy Harry Reid is a bigot. Perhaps, there is a basis, other than having malice in their heart, for people not to agree with you? Nah. You are not open to that possibility. Because you have a closed mind.
It’s not a mosque, it’s a community center that will include an interfaith chapel. These particular Muslims are Sufi, rather the equivalent of our Quakers, and who are persecuted by al Qaida. Their imam has been a bridge between the cultures, called on by Pres. Bush to do this. There has been a Mulslim place of worship in the Pentagon for some time.
So why “wiser not?”
I am familiar with the project. The Sufi- Quaker analogy is a good one. They are the mystical branch of Islam and in my experience more mellow than the other two branches of the faith.
The raw emotion of the families of firefighters and police officers and others killed there is still strong and should be respected. The terrorists who flew the planes were killing in the name of Alah. Putting a Mosque/community center a couple blocks away in my view will be taken as unnecessarily rubbing it in people’s faces who are still hurting. I suspect it is not intended by the people building it, but it will be played that way internationally and taken that way locally. My guess is many Sufis would agree.
Would it be the end of the world if they built it a few more blocks away? Not to my way of thinking. It would be a wise move and display kindness towards the feelings of others.
This has become a zero sum game with lots of name calling. It shouldn’t be. It is not about whether they have the right to build it there. They do. In my view it is about, given the circumstances of those still hurting, is it right to build it there? I don’t think it is. You may disagree. But if you think that makes me a bigot, you are nuts.
Creating Muslim Center free zones is the worst than bigoted. If the families of the 9/11 victims, other than the ones who are themselves Muslim, find the presence of innocent Muslims who had nothing to do with the crime against their loved ones too disturbing, that is unfortunate but it doesn’t trump our responsibility to stand with those innocents against whom irrational emotions are brought to bear.
In fact, the raw pain of which you speak makes it all the more necessary for the rest of us to stand with the innocent against those who are misdirecting their anger. We do the 9/11 families no favors by allowing them to wrong others in their sorrow. Muslim Americans have also suffered profoundly as a result of undeserved hatred in the wake of 9/11. Many, through no fault of their own, have been subjected to harassment, attacks on their school aged children, on their homes and businesses including arson and pipe bombs.
You say you are not a bigot and I’m sure you believe that but the misdirection of anger against innocents you insist we must accommodate is exactly what we, as a society, must never agree to accommodate. Rather it is the responsibility, I would call it a sacred responsibility, of those with cooler heads to act as a brake on the irrational responses of those suffering in grief and rage. And that’s the last you’ll hear on this from this particular mental midget. We clearly won’t convince each other.
Make up facts if you must.
I suggested it would be wiser to build the Mosque elsewhere. You think it is a sacred responsibility to hurt people by building it next to where their loved ones were murdered in the name of that religion.
Do you also protest the war by showing up at funerals of servicemen indicating their loved ones died in vain? People that do have the right. I don’t think that is wise either.
I’ve tried treating you with respect and giving you credit for good intentions. You deserve neither. if you don’t understand the difference between the situations you describe and a mosque built by blameless Americans two blocks away and not,by the way, even visible from ground zero then you are a bigot and a moron and I retract every statement I have made to the effect that your intentions are no doubt good. If I’m a mental midget you’d have to work for eons to ascend to that status. Over and out H-man. We have nothing more to say to each other.
I am not surprised you did not answer the question because it would require you to think about the limits of rights and the place of wise judgement in their exercise. That is a little more difficult than identifying obvious rights. It requires some thought which is not something you feel competent to engage in.
I believed you honestly couldn’t see your position as bigoted which in essence makes you mistaken and bamboozled into a bigoted position, not a person with objectionable intent. I see now that I was wrong. You are just a garden variety mouth breathing bigot. My bad.
the 300 or so Muslims who died in the 911 attacks? Does this not figure in to your equation?
Is the pain endured by their families not as real as that of all the others that perished? And now you slap at their religion because it happens to be the one shared by the murderers?
We should build a mosque AT the WTC site so that peaceful Muslims can worship there and spread a message of love…not hate.
I’ll tell you what…I will support your objection to this facility if you will support my call to make sure that no Christian churches are located within a mile of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City.
“I’m not a bigot who can’t tell the good Muslims from the bad ones, the 9-11 families are, and we should respect their bigoted feelings.”
I like to call people bigots because it makes me feel good. I think picking on families of the fallen who are grieving is good sport, so let me call them offensive names. There, I feel better now.
us know when the grieving has ended so that those of us remaining can get on with living and enjoying our constitutional rights?
You’ve suggested that, simply by being Muslims, they should not be present near ground zero.
Is that a fair summation?
I have never stated or suggested anything like that so no that would not be fair.
Should the Muslims that you say are permitted to visit ground zero be prohibited from praying there? Is there a specific distance that you think the “grievieng masses” could tolerate without being offended?
I even have no problem with people not praying at all. Everyone should be permitted to see ground zero.
If you have ever witnessed the annual reading of the names of people killed you can see their is great diversity in those who were killed. I celebrate diversity. I also try to give the grieving space.
Do you have a problem with any people have a particual place to pray near ground zero? And, if so, which people?
This one is tricky, so think about it before responding.
Which is the bigger insult upon the “hallowed” ground in NYC, the current Muslim worship center near the WTC (which predates the construction of the original WTC) or the NY Dolls strip club club a block away from the WTC site?
Bonus question: Guess where this line of questioning eventually winds up.
New York and New Yorkers are comfortable with both and both pre-existed the attacks.
You haven’t said that, in so many words, but I’m trying to understand what passages like this mean…
… if they can’t be summarized the way I did. Why would they hurt if it’s not because there are Muslims present?
On 9-11 the symbol of NY commerce, the twin towers, were taken down by Muslim terrorists acting in the name of Allah killing 3,000 innocents. Many of the peole killed were first responders who came to help. People are still passing away who were invoved in the clean up from cancers and lung disease.
The twin towers remain a hole in the ground. A group has gotten together to build a mosque in one of the buildings a couple blocks away from the hole in the ground to tear down a building damaged by the attack and put up a 13 story Mosque/community center in its place.
The building of a Mosque at that location under these circumstances has caused much distress to the families of those who passed. I think it would make more sense if you are going to build a mosque while the twin towers is still a hole in the ground to put it further away.
Do I have problems with Muslims? No. Did I say they don’t have a right to put it there? No. I spoke up for understanding and I get labeled a bigot.
There is a symbolism in the building of the Mosque and not building where the twin towers stood that sends a message to both the families of those who passed and those that perpetrated the crimes that is hurtful. The twin towers were targeted because they were a symbol. The location of this mosque was selected because of its symbolism. My idea was to elevate compassion over symbolism.
What a bunch of crap. You spoke up for “understanding”?
The twin towers were targeted because they were a symbol of CAPITALISM and WESTERN IMPERIALISM. The attack on the WTC was primarily motivated by economics and politics…NOT faith and religion. The Islamic Jihad is just a recruiting tool in an economic war.
I don’t think you understand anything much further than your own myopic view of the world, and I think you are simply rationalizing something you really can’t defend. You show understanding to only one party and none for the other side. Where I come from, they have a name for that.
The poor Bin Laden family? Are you nuts, they are billionaires. The people who came to the US on student visas and had pilot training were poor? Ever been outside of Colorado? Next time I am in Dubai, I have been there three or four times in the last year, I will send you pictures.
Ummmm…I’m pretty sure that most Muslims would tell you that they weren’t. Saying so is akin to saying that Scott Roeder murdered George Tiller in the name of God.
Are we to judge all religions by the actions of the fanatics?
You’ve seen the map, right H-man? This building is several blocks from the WTC site. It’s in a standard commercial district complete with hawkers selling 9-11 memorabilia. The only thing that makes its location hallowed ground is that it lies within a 600-foot radius of the WTC site.
I understand the desire to be sympathetic to the victims of 9-11 and their families. But I don’t think that this is the way to do it. In effect, you’re being sympathetic to those with an irrational hatred of Islam. The 9-11 hijackers, while claiming to act in the name of Islam, represent at most a small, fanatical, fringe element. The terrorists deserve our scorn. The rest of Islam does not. The rest of Islam deserves to be treated fairly and, quite frankly, they’re not, for nothing more than craven political advantage.
to someplace within Ground Zero such that the new cultural center is exactly 666 ft from “Hallowed Ground.”
Then would it be OK?
Really, think about it.
A strip clubs is OK on “hallowed ground” but a Muslim community center is not.
Damn I love the “values” voter.
I said in the name of Allah, not that they were properly justified by that faith. I think the people who lost family members do not hate Muslims, they hate that their loved ones were taken by some terrorists who claimed to be acting in the name of that faith. Is it acting unfairly to the rest of Islam to suggest a better place for the Mosque might be a few blocks away? I don’t think so.
I think it is acting unfairly toward the rest of Islam.
I think it’s akin to suggesting that nobody should build a Christian church near George Tiller’s house, all because Scott Roeder murdered Tiller in the name of God. It’s irrational and I don’t think that irrational, emotional arguments should dictate government decisions.
But this is a political blog. So, really, what is the political decision that should be made? Do you think that NYC should prohibit the Islamic center/mosque/whatever-you-want-to-call-it from being built within 600′ of ground zero? If so, how far is far enough? It seems to me that once you’re out of sight of ground zero, the number is arbitrary.
I have said all along they have a right to build it there so the political decision will be they can build it there. I have been suggesting that taking the Gov of NY up on his offer and building it a few blocks away on state land would be a better idea.
You’re contradicting yourself. You’re equating ALL OF ISLAM to the acts of some extreme terrorists. You’re not acknowledging that these terrorists slew innocent Muslims, meaning Muslims were (are actually are, in great numbers, worldwide) victims too. That does not fit with statements like “Do I have problems with Muslims? No.”
Such sentiments mean only that you DO have problems with Muslims. At the very least, you have a problem of being unable to distinguish between a handful of terrorists who rally under that banner and the hundreds of millions of Muslims who live peacefully, and who suffer at the hands of terrorists (as I said, in greater numbers than Americans) as well.
If any 9/11 survivor has a problem with that, chances are they are ignorant, too. Being a victim is no excuse.
Wow – well said
Fareed Zakaria also made the same point
I understand that the terrorists do not represent all of Islam. I understand that many more muslims are victims of muslim terrorists than any other group, Iraq being a good example. Be specific as to what I said, paragraph and line where you think I contradict that and I will be specific in response.
Believing that the presence of this mosque will cause pain to the 9/11 survivors does not fit with statements like “I don’t lump all muslims into one category and imply they are connected to terrorists.” Because their presence can not trigger such feelings unless one BELIEVES that all Muslims fit under that one category.
I want to address something else. Upthread you compare the building of this mosque to this:
The comparison doesn’t hold up. If anything, the people who oppose it are the ones doing the shouting, and the mosque is the politician in a public place. People can ignore this center; they’re choosing not to.
As to my family picnic example, what I was trying to convey is, the NYC zoning people are going to approve of this location for the Mosque. Once they do it is lawful to build it there.
The point I was trying to make is that does not answer the question of, even if lawful, should they build it there. Not as a matter of right or entitlement but rather as a question of respect for the feelings of others.
If any group of people should be sensitive to these types of things, religious groups should be.
“Should they build it there” is all predicated upon how the survivors of 9/11 react to it being built there. A question of respect for the feelings of others, as you put it.
If those feelings are that Muslims shouldn’t be there because of the one unfortunate thing they shared in common with the 9/11 terrorists, then their feelings are not fair. Their feelings are based in ignorance, not understanding. And as I’ve stated, being victims gives them no excuse for ignorance.
Is that how you’re interpreting their feelings? Am I getting that straight?
I think you will find the 9-11 families largely bare no grudges towards Muslims as a group. They don’t have problems interacting with them and likly have friends that are Muslim. New York tends to be a more diverse place than Colorado.
This is about building a Mosque/community center while the twin towers remain an open pit. Given the tragedy, I think putting the Mosque further away makes sense.
You can search for evil all you want behind my remarks but you won’t find any. I think the statement, first put forth here by MAH, that you agree with him or you are a bigot is shallow and disappointing. I just have a different opinion.
I appreciate that you are honestly looking to see where we differ. I think in matters of religion and people in pain it is wiser to give people space.
If that’s a difference of opinion, I can respect that even if I can’t agree with it. But it will become a different matter if you take action to prevent it from being built, such as signing an online petition, attending a rally, or the such. At that point, it becomes a matter of our right to assemble and worship, and that right trumps social sensibility every time.
Cheers.
Between you me and the fencepost, it is not going to get built there any time soon, if at all, so this is likely much ado about not so much.
I am not sure the group has funding and if you think it has been ugly so far, wait until the building phase starts.
do you anticipate? And by whom?
of the comments being made that “it won’t be built anytime soon.” Funding questions are one thing (I’d appreciate any links illuminating them) but comments about the inevitable ugliness such as yours echo things people in the South said about Freedom Riders and Civil Rights workers. Those were often self fulfilling prophecies because they gave tacit approval to the violence, when condemnation and a zero-tolerance police toward such ugliness would have prevented most of it.
These are the times when we find out what kind of people we are. I’m going to stand up for what’s right – for what’s American. You say you’re not holding this position out of bigotry or ignorance, and I believe you, but nearly everyone else who agrees with you is basing their position precisely on that.
They have just as much right to protest the mosque as the Muslims building it want it, but they have NO RIGHT to take any preventative action. That isn’t free speech on their part, and it denies freedom of assembly and religion for these Muslims. It’s unAmerican, and I hope you’ll join me in condemning any such action.
treated them like equals…
from TPM
It sounds like they’re going to be ready this time. This is really good news. And to those of you that thought having a primary was a bad idea? I give you Craig Hughes’ opinion:
Bennet is better for it and so is Buck. I would much rather have had the McInnis stuff come up in a primary than in a general election.
I think the only people that don’t like it are the control freaks of both parties. The Dems proved their control freaks are still in charge. The Republicans proved their control freaks are not so in charge. Perhaps it is easier to throw off the status quo when you are not in power.
I thought the primary was a good thing from the start – and received a lot of guff for that view.
What with BashBuckPols doing it for him.
If something is true but reflects negatively on your candidate? Such as Buck’s violation of ethics and rules while a US Attorney’s staff?
I would agree that a) the high heels remark is pointless and has been overblown, and b) it didn’t really reflect, because of Buck’s ineptness, what I think he really meant to say.
Face it, you are here because we are the closest thing to friends that you have. You are lucky because here in our lair we are attempting to educate you in history, politics and even numbers and letters.
Desperate for approval from the ColoradoPols community.
you’re just a young pup bewildered by the older hounds that know what is going on. Soon you may be housebroke, then we’ll work on the barking and whining that goes late into the night in that pointless way that young puppies have.
They think they know better than you and can tell you what to do. I aree with William Wallace – “Freeeeeeeeeeeeedom!”
We’re not saying you need to become liberal. We just want intelligent thoughtful commentary from you.
Never. But I do strive my best to provide intelligent thoughtful commentary, mixed in with a little humor, when I’m not dogfighting hard core lefties like Aristotle and he who was banned.
I’m not that hard left, which is well known here.
But I’ll make you a deal, beej – I won’t “dogfight” with you if you won’t with me.
That, of course, means making no provocative “you libs” kind of statements, though. If you want peace, you have to behave peacefully.
I can do it. Can you?
peace loving progressives? But if you’re not that hard left, then “you libs” wouldn’t apply to you.
is treating us with respect. Dropping “you statements” (“you guys,” “you libs,” etc.) Dropping “jokes.” Speaking only to thie issues. Being big enough not to respond to insults. (The true grown-up doesn’t care who started it, she or he ends it.)
Cologeek probably agrees with most of your positions, but we don’t get upset with him because he minds his manners. Same with Laughing Boy, although he’s more socially liberal than you. His economic and partisan arguments are enough to drive one batty, but nobody but a few get mad at him because he keeps his cool most of the time and treats us with respect. He gets respect in turn.
Debating someone who fundamentally believes you’re wrong isn’t easy. But if you keep in mind that disagreement does not equal attack or disrespect, you can get along. I’m willing to let bygones be bygones if you can engage us respectfully.
because I don’t want to paint with a broad brush and assume everybody thinks the same way. I’m referring specifically to the liberal belief system. If you have a more descriptive title, please let me know.
And explain to all of us fools just exactly what is
?
(While providing this explanation, remind yourself not to “paint with a broad brush.”)
As D-demar noted, you are what you eat, bj.
I won’t even pretend to try to explain it. But I know it when I see it, and it ain’t pretty.
You don’t know it at all. Just admit it. You attempt to “explain” all kinds of things about which you are clueless. Now you are unable to explain something you claim to “know?”
Some day you will graduate from middle school behavior.
BTW, do math students give a dissertation seminar prior to their defense? You’d let us know, wouldn’t you?
I guess I should have said, “I won’t even pretend to understand it.” It makes no sense whatsoever.
We have prelims before the defense, but there’s no way I’m inviting you
a) because I wouldn’t want it highjacked by politics
and
b) because you wouldn’t understand anything about math.
It’s kinda like the difference between saying “people of color” and “colored people.”
So, does this mean you’re going to give it a shot? You didn’t really say.
is too long and cumbersome. It means the same thing as “you libs”.
Do you feel like you’re getting respect when someone says “you cons?” Probably not.
Respect is a two way street. You don’t have to like our beliefs, but they’re here to stay, just as yours are. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, as they say.
It’s simply a way of referring to a group of people with a similar political ideology, and commenting on that ideology. E.g., us conservatives are awesome! Even if some particularly touchy libs take offense though, I could care less. I have better things to do with my time than obsessing over the hurt feelings of the libs that are ruining are country.
Is that how I should take that?
Check with some people you know well – they can be friends, family, colleagues, mentors, whatever – and ask them if they like it when they are part of a group that someone calls “you people.” See what they say.
You’ve got to have a little bit of a thick skin if you’re going to blog on a political website like this one. I have many friends that are liberal, in fact my roommate last year was a lib.
… but this is about respect. Yes, we can all take some jabbing – if we know you still respect us. Laughing Boy does it all the time, and no one (well, almost no one) gets butthurt because he’s shown respect. He only has problems with assholes who also happen to be liberals, but not the liberals who are not.
So. Do you want to let bygones be bygones?
And no, I’m not in a mood to sing kum-by-ya with liberals around the campfire just yet.
Right?
. . . you are what you eat, coprophage.
Spicy Quinoa, Cucumber and Tomato Salad
Ditch the avocado for a sprinkling of Feta over the top, and make sure to use two peppers if you want to be able to taste them.
Yum!
with:
– stupid insulting nicknames (BashBuckPols)
– stupid insulting hyperbole (“the Obama administration … want[s] everybody to be on unemployment” and “Democrats… want to tax us all to death”)
– dishonest false claims (eg still defending “death panels” even after it’s proven a flat lie, and laughably trying to defend it with bullshit like in my sig line)
– dishonestly getting a nemesis kicked off Pols by claiming he “outed” you when you posted your name and occupation and place of study multiple times.
As a professed big Jesus fan, let me ask you: WWJBPLBT — who would Jesus be a pissy lying bitch to? I put you in the Ted Haggard category: pompously citing your fealty to Jesus, even though if he were here, I assure you: he’d think you’re a hypocritical jackass.
.
It’s understandable if you haven’t been paying close attention when us Christianists try to proselytize/ evangelize you, but let me boil it down to basics:
ALL Christians are hypocrites and jackasses and liars.
That’s why we need to be saved – from ourselves and our selfish natures.
That’s why we need to be forgiven.
And our sins are so egregious, in the face of all that our Creator God has done for us, that it took the sacrifice of the most beloved Son of Man for expiation of our sins.
Being a Christian isn’t a club you can just join. You don’t get to be one by doing good works or living a holy life. First step, you have to look at your own life and be overwhelmed by how evil you are. Bad. Hurtful to others. Hypocritical and devious. That’s a requirement for entry.
Then you have to convince yourself that there’s something bigger than you, something good and wonderful that can wipe away all that is bad in you.
Ted Haggard went through that publicly. BJ and me, more privately.
But for you to think you are insulting a Christian by accusing them of being a hypocrite, you misunderstand. It was when we first recognized what hypocrites we were that we were able to reach beyond ourselves for help.
I sure don’t mean that we’re glad to be hypocrites; but we’re glad that we can recognize that we are. It is a precious starting point to Peace and Love.
.
Sorry, NO! Your definition of how one can be a Christian is not definitive and not what millions of people believe.
You believe this if you wish, do not try to pretend it’s fact:
.
I’m so confused.
You tell me that I am free to believe what I wrote,
but then you tell me it’s not factual, and I am not free to believe that it’s factual.
do you see the contradiction ?
.
Folks have core beliefs, beliefs that are “written in their hearts,” so to speak.
Those beliefs are as real to them as a posteriori matters of observed fact, that which trends toward scientific knowledge.
Folks at this site throw out (post) progressive religious beliefs as if they are factual all the time.
Where have you told them (yourself) WHOA ?
.
Sorry, NO! Your definition of how one can be a Christian is not definitive and not what millions of people believe.
You believe this if you wish, do not try to pretend it’s fact:
.
Yes, lotsa folks in Christian churches believe themselves to be righteous because of the good works they have done, or their good intentions.
It’s a good thing for them to strive to live right. I strive for that myself.
But I have a basis in church teachings for my assertion that Jesus came to save the downfallen. Even though He is all-powerful, not even Jesus can save those folks who don’t think they need to be saved.
And it isn’t so useful for adults to think of “salvation” in terms of a strato-cumulus “heaven” where content souls play harps. It isn’t so helpful to think in terms of getting sucked up into the sky to spend an eternity eating bon-bons in the bosom of God.
For the kind of practical people who read this site, it’s more useful to think of being “saved” in terms of having Peace and Love and comfort to help them cope with the challenges of the here and now. Christianity is intended to help broken people who are having a tough time making it through one more day of pain.
.
Second, facts and beliefs are two different things. You can have your own opinions, but you can’t have your own facts. You don’t get to choose whether or not to “believe” a fact. Yes, I know, some people think they can “believe” away the fact that the earth is not flat, and that we don’t really see the sun in the east in the morning. Their beliefs don’t change a darned thing.
You can choose to believe that your interpretation of the Bible is based on “fact” and all other interpretations and beliefs are wrong. You’re entitled to that opinion, that belief, but your choice doesn’t actually make any difference to anyone but you.
Many, many Christians do not see it as fact that they must lable themselves as evil in order to be saved. Imperfect, of course. Not at all the same as evil. That’s a hard, fire & brimstone judgement. Your right to hold it, my right to dissent.
to be able to believe two completely contradictory things at the same time?
For example
and
At least one of these two claims must be completely false, Barron.
So forgive me, Barron, for resisting your arguments (in other threads) that we ought to incorporate your idea of morality into the laws of my government.
Those are not contradictions if you buy Christian theology (which I don’t) An all-powerful God is prohibited from
because to do so would violate the principle of free will.
For your penance, read my favorite Bible quote, from the Song of Songs:
between “can’t” and “won’t.”
Or, at least that’s what the nuns taught me (at the fast moving end of a ruler, I might add).
BTW, I’ve always found Malachi 2:3 inspirational:
I’ve been on blind dates with girls like Malachi…
-humor (with a valid point)
-true
-still hung up on the death panels? I feel sorry for you.
-that was a clear violation of site policy. Though I had previously let slip a few isolated details, they were never posted all together like that in a way where enraged leftists like yourself could find me. Thankfully, ColoradoPols understood this and said as much.
Jesus would never use language like that. Somehow I just can’t keep a straight face when you claim to speak for Jesus.
How the fuck would you know?
And Coloradopols will run it.
Have you written any diary with new, solid info against Hick that Coloradopols has deep-sixed?
No? Then cool it.
Police beatings, racial hate crimes, people murdered by illegal immigrants, etc. Haven’t heard a peep from Pols, other than a few unpromoted diaries. Tancredo is running ads about it.
That’s what big cities are like. No mayor has ever solved any or all of those problems.
Dirt is corruption, nepotism, etc.
As said, find the dirt on Hickenlooper.
when you can just blame him for others’ dirt?
I think public safety should be quite high on the list of responsibilities of a big city mayor.
Of course, you would succeed where he has failed, right?
There will always be crime. I suppose you think Republicans have a great record on this issue, right?
All they can say is “but Republicans would be worse”, which is patently untrue.
Ken Buck comes to mind.
Close but consistent lead for Buck. They’ve both just come out of nasty primaries so I’d say positives & negatives have been equally impacted for both at this point.
He looks and sounds a lot better, more sincere, than Jane Norton.
When I did the interviews of the Hawaii gubernatorial candidates, the scheduling just happened to put all three interviews on the same day. When I wrote them up, I didn’t post until I wrote all three as a personal incentive to make myself get all three done.
But I received feedback from a ton of politicos in Hawaii that any one of the interviews by itself was strongly advantageous to that candidate and therefore posting all three at the same time made it very even-handed.
My goal with the Senate and Governor race is to post the interviews in each group at the same time. But that then raises the question, how long do I wait for the last one? Especially if I think there is no intent to actually grant an interview?
I ask because I have a great interview of Ken Buck. I think it does a very good job of illustrating who he is. But with no balancing Senator Bennet interview, it will be advantageous to Ken Buck.
I want to be fair. (And I don’t want RedGreen telling me I have a crush on Buck.) So how long should I wait? Not just for the Senate race, but if I hit the same thing on the Governor interviews (where I could well have Tom Tancredo well before the other two)?
Seems to me if you gave Bennet the opportunity and he for some reason does not go forward with it, you are not being fair to Buck by not putting his up. Seems to me like three days after the first interview would be fair. Perhaps that will help you get the second interview.
I enjoyed your past interviews with Buck and look forward to reading this one.
I thought of a great question for you to ask any incumbents you interview before this election:
If you’re defeated, do you promise not to participate in ‘running the table’ and trying to pass legislation like cap-and-trade or card check while you’re a lame duck?
Because Bennet was appointed when Buck is elected won’t he take the position right away? That is what happened in Massachusetts. Same thing with Illinois and Deleware?
I very easily could be wrong, but it’s not a special election so I assume he’d serve until Jan.
No no no. Bennet was appointed to fill out Ken Salazar’s term, which ends in January. The Massachusetts special election was something entirely different, to fill the term of a senator who died in office.
I’d expect that from the ‘pubs. Is it only okay when they do it?
If my guys lose, I want them to pull every legitimate measure in the rulebook to try to get as much of our agenda passed before they leave office. That’s fair.
I want them to “run the table”, just to get things accomplished as soon as possible. They can rest and relax later.
There’s no reason to sit on the Buck interview, unless you want to be able to interview Bennet without his team having a chance to read the Buck interview first (since you’ve said you’re asking the same questions of each). It’s probably better to post them on consecutive days rather than weeks apart because it helps focus the conversation about them, but if you have one ready long before the other, go ahead and post it so it won’t be old news by the time it appears.
Buck took with David that he has since Buckpedaled on.
If he does not reply or cannot do that, then I think you have met your obligation to be fair and objective, and should go ahead with what works best for you.
As part of your effort to get a date certain, be sure to explain to Bennet why you’re worth a shit.
A little goes a long way.
I’m going to call again on Monday and if I can get an interview M/T, then I’ll post together. Otherwise I’ll post the Buck interview and a companion piece explaining that I would like to interview Senator Bennet too and why I think it makes sense for him to be interviewed.
Ken is like an uncle to me and he is a good guy – I know many here disagree with his issues (I heavily disagree on some) but in getting to know him, I truly believe he wants to be in the Senate to help Colorado – no alterior motive – no cash cowing – I really can’t say that about many politicians
Offer the same interview to Bennett – if he turns it down, it’s his loss
Oh wait –
37 R crimes…in one year.(and way better music)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
Boehner is a criminal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
A hundred more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
some more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
I’m so bored.
Really? That’s your defense? And in case you hadn’t noticed, Democrats have control of both houses of congress and the presidency, so it’s not like Republicans have any real power right now.
My point is not that it’s ever ok – my point is that it’s nonpartisan.
That’s why the Dems are able to get things passed without any obstruction in the Senate… oh, wait, that’s not true, is it?
I miss the good old days when we had Republicans in power and no corruption.
You can say a lot of things about Bush, but you can’t say he was corrupt. He was a man of honor.
The economic crisis in the United States has reduced the use of routine medical care, and the cutbacks here are much deeper than in countries with universal health care systems, researchers say in a new report.
The study, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, finds that “Americans, who face higher out-of-pocket health care costs, have reduced their routine medical care” much more than people in Britain, Canada, France and Germany.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08…