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
September 19, 2010 12:40 AM UTC

See Buck. See Buck Lie.

  • 145 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

One of our commenters nailed this one, and here are the two rather damning video clips back-to-back–we’re pretty sure that any way you look at it, he’s lying in one of them:

The first clip is from the video of Republican U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck with the New York Times’ John Harwood posted earlier today. The second clip is from the “Tea Party”-affiliated Liberty Candidate Search, dated December of 2009.

Transcript, starting with the Times interview clip:

NYT: The Obama administration, as you know, has a commission looking into how to bring down deficits, and also how to reform he tax system.  One of the options that they are considering is moving from income-based taxes to consumption taxes — sales tax, VAT, whatever.  Do you think that’s a good idea, to move toward consumption taxes?

Ken Buck:  I think a VAT is a bad idea.  In some ways a consumption tax, a national sales tax makes some sense, but I’d be very concerned that…

NYT: Like the FAIR tax?

Ken Buck: Well, I am not a FAIR tax proponent. [Pols emphasis] I think we need to simplify the income tax code as the way to go and not adopt a FAIR tax.  But I think that if we move towards a FAIR tax, if we move towards a national sales tax, we’d have to make sure that we do away with the income tax — that we don’t have just have more taxes in place in two different ways.  

NYT: But if you could do away with the income tax, would it be better for the economy and for the American people to go to a sales tax?

Ken Buck: There would be some benefits to it.  One of the benefits is our competition in the international trade. The corporate income tax, in particular, is a tax that puts American corporations at a disadvantage.  I think we lose overseas when we do that.  So there are some advantages to a national sales tax . I think it is a very complicated issue in how to transition from an income tax to a sales tax.  I think the better answer is for us to stay with an income tax and simplify it .

NYT: But it sounds like, again, your concern is more practicality — that in principle, as a policy, you think it would be better.

Ken Buck: No, I’ve never said I think it would be better. [Pols emphasis] I think it would be better to simplify the tax code.

And the second clip, from that “Tea Party” courting session last December:

Ken Buck: I don’t think the income tax is a good idea.  I think a national sales tax, a consumption tax, a FAIR tax is a better idea. [Pols emphasis]  I think a flat tax is a better idea than what we’ve got now.

We really don’t know how Buck’s going to explain his way out of this one, folks, being about the most bald-faced deception imaginable, but now is probably the time to try.

Tweet
Share

Comments

145 thoughts on “See Buck. See Buck Lie.”

  1. You can think something is a good idea in principle without being a proponent of it. Ken never committed to the FAIR tax (I don’t know why; I wish he would have). He has always said that there are several ways of doing taxes better than the current system (as you indeed see in the last video with the mention of some other flat tax). That does not mean that in this particular circumstance he thinks the FAIR tax is the best way to go.

      1. The problem is not that people aren’t buying enough, per se. It’s that they don’t have jobs (or high enough paying jobs) which would give them money to buy things. By converting to a consumption tax, you directly put money in people’s pockets by eliminating the income tax, as well has giving business more money with which to hire people. Of course it does increase prices on goods. So the issue isn’t really how much people are taxed, but rather the way in which they are taxed. There are a number of reasons why taxing consumption is the best way to go (in fact when the country was founded there was no income tax).

        1) It encourages people to save rather than spend, and when they do spend to spend wisely. Thus economic activity becomes more efficient, strengthening our economy.

        2) It encourages production rather than consumption, which would lead to surpluses which could be exported to erase our trade deficit with China and other countries.

        3) It taxes currently untaxed black markets, such as the sale of illegal drugs. With a consumption tax, even if a criminal sells drugs, they still have to pay a tax when they buy stuff.

        1. Or do you believe him now?

          I’m curious what goes through your mind when you realize someone you trusted has been lying to you. Does it bother you at all? It would bother me. Doesn’t it hurt?

          1. Dems need to stop playing these silly games and debate the issues (of course they can’t, because Michael Bennet doesn’t have a coherent idea in his head). If you look at the context in which Buck made those statements it’s clear exactly what he meant. While he thinks the FAIR tax is a better idea in principle, he does not think that with the way the system is set up now that changing over to a FAIR tax would be better in practice.

            1. NYT: But it sounds like, again, your concern is more practicality — that in principle, as a policy, you think it would be better.

              Ken Buck: No, I’ve never said I think it would be better. I think it would be better to simplify the tax code.

              Buck claims he’s never said the FAIR tax is better even in principle. They specifically ask him about the distinction you’re making, and he still disagrees.

              It’s a lie. And you’re lying about what he said in spite of the fact that the actual quote is a few inches away from your post.

              Is this like Stockholm Syndrome? Are you so invested in your relationship with Buck that you’ll lie for him, even when he hurts you?

                    2. Ken Buck is far smarter and more experienced than I am. But yes, he does listen to the concerns of Coloradans, unlike a certain incumbent senator.

                    3. Coloradopols has manipulated you.  It was not honest.  Listen to the tape and look at the part of the transcript Coloradopols left out.  Buck’s comment was in reference to Harwood’s summary of the comments Coloradopols omitted.  If you follow the tape you will also see significant words they omitted without noting the omission.

                      ColoradoPols is dedicated to keeping the Dems pumped up.  They have decided not to let the truth get in the way of their “story”.  But you can look at the tape, which is why I posted it, and see what the context was, or you can allow yourself to be manipulated.

                    4. Give me the Ministry of Truth version here. Rather than casting vague aspersions, can you tell me specifically what you think was “omitted” from this transcript? Because I’m not finding what you’re talking about, and I think you’re just trowing shit out there in the hopes that nobody will verify it.

                      In this case, Buck’s statements WERE verified. And he is lying. Buck cannot claim he “never said” something, then be shown on video saying EXACTLY what he claims he “never said.” That is a lie in the very simplest terms, isn’t it?

                      How is it not? For best results, your answer should not contain Pols bashing. Just tell me WHY what I can plainly see is wrong.

                    5. Notice ColoradoPols does not identify the question and doesn’t give context to the answer:

                      Q: Ken, what would you propose, stand for and defend to reform our tax code?

                      Buck: Boy, I’ll tell you, I think our tax code is a disaster.  I think we have picked winners and losers for years and it is absolutely wrong.

                      ColoradoPols quote:

                      (I don’t think the income tax is a good idea.  I think a national sales tax, a consumption tax, a FAIR tax is a better idea. [Pols emphasis]  I think a flat tax is a better idea than what we’ve got now.)

                      This is one of those areas where I think it is essential to find the coalition in the United States Senate that will find improvement.  Standing with five other Senators for a national sales tax isn’t going to be good enough.  I will not allow the current situation to exist by having my feet stuck in concrete with, “I have got the only right answer to this”.  We have got to find a way to simply the tax code that we have now, or drastically change it.  I just don’t know whether there is the political will in Washington DC to adopt something like the national sales tax or FAIR tax.  

                      And so I am flexible on this question and I am not trying to avoid the question or not take a strong stand on it, but I really feel we have such a disastrous tax policy right now that moving it towards simplification moving it towards a flat tax or a system that doesn’t have all the loop holes that we now have is an improvement. And I am willing to take an improvement even if I can’t get everything that I want which would be more along the lines of a sales tax,which I also think frankly is going to end up to be very complicated.  We’ve got to at least recognize the difference in income levels in even a sales tax. It is something that I recognize a problem;I am just not sure whether there aren’t several different solutions to that problem.

                    6. You are still dodging the issue at hand. It’s ridiculous, and you’re not helping Buck.

                      Nobody claims that Buck didn’t elaborate on his answer. John Harwood, asked Buck if he thought in principle a national sales tax, or a FAIR tax would be better, and Buck replied “No, I’ve never said I think it would be better.”

                      The second video clip is of Buck says he thinks a national sales tax would be better.

                      It does not matter if he explains afterward to the teabaggers that there is little support in DC for a national sales tax. He said very explicitly he thought these proposals were better than the income tax. And that makes his answer to Harwood A LIE.

                      See how easy this is when you’re not trying to deny the obvious truth?

                    7. That is not a gotcha question.

                      But it will unavoidably be one now if it gets asked-

                      Mr Buck, we have video of you saying )quote “(you) …don’t think the income tax is a good idea…I think a national sales tax, a consumption tax, a FAIR tax is a better idea. and video of you saying

                      No, I’ve never said I think it would be better. I think it would be better to simplify the tax code.

                      What is your actual belief? Why did you change your mind?  How is it that you have not yet figured out that you cannot say one thing in the living room and another thing in the corral and no one will notice the difference?  Are you stupid or do you just have the worst media team of the interwebs era?

                    8. Reduce it to one sentence.

                      True or not, people will be more likely to remember.  The Republicans never worry about truth, only repetition.  Why should you?

                    12. It’s hilarious how those who haven’t cared a lick about Buck’s policy proposals in the primary now think they can suddenly attribute to him all these ulterior motives and expect to be taken seriously.

                    13. If you’re referring to MADCO, I don’t believe that he’s a registered Republican.  Unless I’m wrong in that, Buck’s policies were not his business to care about in the primary.

                      Crap.  I’m SO sorry.  If you don’t understand how Colorado elections work, just ask.  Any of us would be happy to explain.

                    14. MADCO and Co. should educate themselves about Buck’s positions on the issues before misinterpreting his words.

                    15. How can someone misinterpret words when you’re saying that the interpretation has changed?

                      You keep fighting the allegation by saying it’s true.  If this is your only argument… keep it to yourself.

                    17. Again, and for the last time, you’ve said, repeatedly, that Buck did change his opinion.  But, according to you, it wasn’t a lie, but a realization that he didn’t understand the issue.

                      Buck’s motives can be questioned, but the fact that he switched his opinion cannot be.  He did.

                      So what part of Buck’s policy are the stupid Dems not understanding?  Is it the part he hasn’t said yet, but will beam directly through the antennae on your snazzy tin foil hat?  Please, keep us updated.  You know, on account of how his positions change.

                    20. But I suppose that if you want to maintain your delusional world view there’s no way you can accept the truth.

                    23. You are smarter than everyone around you.

                      You know what they can rarely only imagine. And then barely.

                      You can see and understand Truth when everyone appears to be drunken drones incapable of an original thought.  It’s hard.

                      I recommend a hobby or sport that takes you into areas where you are less superior. Golf is easy enough. Bridge. Something.

                      Yes, you know a thing or two about delusional people.  But not what you think you know.

                    26. We’re all bullies for expecting Ken Buck to say what he means and mean what he says. When Ken Buck double-speaks, it is our job to decipher what he really meant to say, not hold him accountable for what he actually said.

                      Cling on his every word, for they are riddles spun with gold and silk threads. We are the ignorant — even if it takes generations, we must never give up our study of “The World According to Buck”.

      2. the problem is not that people aren’t spending enough. The problem is that people were spending too much and racked up a huge bubble of debt, which promptly collapsed when the bills came due. Instead in would be smarter to save up for things before we buy them.

    2. your claim of spin… then spun the other direction… must have you about to vomit worse than getting off of the “tilt-a-whirl” at the old Elitch Gardens.

      (IF of course you know what that is.)

      LOL

    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D…

      In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs.

      Beej, the only way you can watch Ken Buck claim he “never said I think it would be better,” then watch him say “I think it would be better” thirty seconds later, and conclude that he is being spun “out of context,” is to admit that you will believe anything you are told, regardless of how obviously false it is – I have neon orange spots and ride a magic carpet to work.

      It is actually quite interesting to meet someone as hopelessly divorced from reality as you are. I hope you bequeath your brain to science.

      1. Yes, I agree that if you only watch Bennet’s (and Bennet Pols’s) edited clips, you would not understand Buck’s position. However if you actually listen to Ken himself, he is clear.

        1. is that he was saying one thing to a group of (very gullible, it turns out) extremist right-wingers, and another thing to the New York Times.

          He lied to one of them. Did he lie to both of them? Is he lying to you now? How do you know?

          1. I never expected him to support the FAIR tax. When you guys edited his clips to make him sound like he is saying things he isn’t, then of course it confuses people.

            1. You’re saying that he lied to the Liberty Candidate Search.

              Are you un-confused now?  Because you seem to be the only one suffering.  I’m worried for you.

              1. he threw that out as one of many possibilities but did not commit to it. On closer inspection, he found that it would not practically work to change from our current system to that system.

            2. You and H-man keep clinging to this for dear life. Where is this mythical “edit” that proves when Buck claims he “never said” something, then is shown on video immediately after saying EXACTLY what he claimed to have “never said,” he is somehow not lying?

              Because I too have watched both videos. And Buck is obviously lying in one of them. No “editing” required.

              So, what am I missing, Beej? With specifics, please.

          2. Very simply you lie. What a pitiful dweeb you are! You lie when you tell us one thing in Colorado and do another in Washington. You lie when you run your ad against Ken Buck. Even the MSM says you lie. You lie when you suggest Ken Buck will have any impact whatsoever on birth control. Give me a break!

        2. Buck is “very clear” when he denies he ever said something we see him saying seconds later in this video? You really believe this doublethink, don’t you?

          I’ve always wondered how totalitarian regimes are able to convince so many of their citizens that they are benevolent. Then I see how impossibly dogmatically devoted to your man you are, willing to swallow any lie he tells you, no matter how obviously ridiculous, no matter how much proof is sitting right in front of your face.

          Beej, people like you are why lies are able to prosper.

    4. He claims he never said it was better than the income tax. Yet those were precisely the words he used.

      You literally cannot construct a more perfect lie than this.

        1. Buck now says he does not support the FAIR tax even in principle.

          Is there anything he could lie about that would make you question his love for you? If he said “I never said abortion was wrong,” would that change your mind? If he said, “I never claimed to be the DA in Weld County,” would it make you a little suspicious of his honesty?

          1. Instead of actually thinking through what the best tax structure would be, you of course just want to smear Buck. If you actually took the time to listen to him you would understand what he is saying.

            1. He’s saying black is white, up is down, and he never supported the FAIR tax in principle.

              It’s called lying. You’d see it too, if only you could. Get help. You don’t have to let him treat you this way.

  2. And not just the specific sentences, the NYT article sounds like he clearly prefers the income tax to a consumption tax.

    And the second is a clear preference for a consumption tax over an income tax. Not as long so you don’t have as much context, but still pretty clearly unambiguous.

    Which leads to a giant question ask him – which do you think is better at the federal level, income tax, consumption tax, or a combination.

    And the secondary question – what gives with the opposite answer to ___?

    1. His opposition to deductions (say, for charitable contributions or mortgages, which are pretty popular) etc.

      You can see the whole thing here:

      http://www.libertycandidatesea…

      It’s very unambiguous. He’s being completely dishonest with everyone now that he has won the primary. He is hiding his really extreme views. No one, conservatives or moderates or liberals, republicans or democrats or independents should trust this guy. Period.

      His boots aren’t just covered in it, they’re full of it.  

      1. Buck wants to simplify the tax code and do away with having one government interest protected group favored over the other.  What a wild idea.

        Think about it.  A mortgage deduction means renters pay higher taxes than home owners.  Why should people that can’t afford homes subsidize those that can?

        He doesn’t want to add a consumption tax to the income tax because he wants to cut government, not tax more.  

        I trust him.

        I don’t understand the black and white world you inhabit.  Mine is more complicated than that.

        Having an opinion that may change over time is not being a liar.  It is being open minded and intelligent.

                    6. is just shtick and how much is just them.  Sometimes my random guess makes me feel better about the world and wandering in it without a gun.  Sometimes not.

                      I seriously think this is just BJ.  Emotionally stunted and not intellectually gifted.

                      LOL, BOOBS!  Now he’ll have something to keep him busy for the rest of the night.

                    8. Most liars are more subtle about it. Ken Buck is clearly a pathological liar.

                      I wonder if Buck has any consistent beliefs.

                      If Nancy Cronk interviewed Buck, he’d tell her he supports single-payer health care with free late-term abortions on demand.

                    10. PS-Apparently Buck is now lying about errrr clarifying, I mean, maturing his position from ‘principle to practical’ on the eggmendemnt.  Apparently he ‘didn’t know’ it would do all those things people have been saying for over a year it would do…

                      Read about it in the Ghost.

                    13. But will voters support your liar?

                      Six weeks until the election. That’s about 42 different positions Buck can claim to hold on any given issue.

                    14. Ken Buck is the R nominee to be US Senator.

                      Typos and grammatical failings are not 180Вє reversals of policy positions.

                      Last winter he said he thought A was a good idea, better than B that we  have now.  Then last week he said B needs refinement but he never said A was a good idea.

                      It’s not the only Buck reversal, but it’s just most obvious one I’ve seen on video yet.  

                  2. “an income tax” vs “our current system of income taxation”.

                    I think Buck comes at this from our current system of income taxation, with the distortions incident to it, is flawed. Besides the distortions domestically, it also hurts us internationally and in job creation (ColoradoPols transcript omits his reference to jobs found on the tape, perhaps unintentionally – no, on this I do not accuse them of being a “Liar”).  He is aware that Obama et al want to increase taxes by having an additional revenue flow from a sales or consumption or VAT tax.  He wants to cut spending and lower taxes.

                    I think the message Buck is trying to convey is consistent. The area is complicated.  To call him a liar is disengenuous. I don’t think his positions changed on this at all but I conceed the terms used lead to confusion.  

                    1. Clip 1: Buck told John Hardwood that he “never said” that a national sales tax, FAIR tax, etc. would be “better.” Exact quote: “No, I’ve never said I think it would be better.”

                      Clip 2: Buck tells teabaggers “I think a national sales tax, a consumption tax, a FAIR tax is a better idea.”

                      Buck is so clearly, so obviously lying when these two clips are compared that I am frankly amazed to see you jeopardizing your credibility by saying he isn’t. He said what he said, and you can’t change it. You look like a utter sycophant trying to save Buck from something so obvious, you should probably stop trying.

                    2. Either his position changed about the FAIR tax or he lied.  that’s not the confusing part.

                      In fact, here’s another part that’s not confusing:  he tells the room back then what he tells them. Then 9 months later he tells the NYT something completely opposite.  People in the room aren’t going to be bothered anyway – they will believe what they heard him say when they were in the room.  

                      The real beauty of dog whistle politics is it doesn’t matter what the candidate believes, it only matters what voters think he believes.

                    1. When I’m on the road I like two eggs, hard, wheat toast and coffee.

                      I also like Guinnes. It’s food.

                      I like the ocean. And the 4th of July. I like good movies. I like the Marx Brothers. And Ernie Kovacs. And George Carlin. And Richord Pryor. And Eddie.

                      I like the Grateful Dead. Baseball. American blues.  Campfires. Bikes. Jets. And really really cool ideas.

                      I’m sorry – what’s the question?

        2. He didn’t say, “I thought the FAIR tax was a good idea at first, but then I read about it, and I changed my mind.”

          He said, “I’ve never said I think it would be better.”

          That’s a lie. His position on the issue doesn’t really matter one way or the other. What matters is his honesty with voters. Clearly he thinks voters are too dumb to notice they’re being lied to. Are they?

          Hmmm, how does “Both Ways Buck” sound to you? Sounds pretty good to me.

          1. Buck was referring to Harwood’s restatement of what Buck had just said. But ColoradoPols omitted that from the transcript so you would have to listen to the interview.  Go back and listen to the interview, you will learn something if you allow yourself to.

            What is amazing to me is how easily ColoradoPols has been able to manipulate you.  Clealy ColoradoPols thinks some bloggers “are too dumb to notice they’re being lied to.  Are they?”

            1. Buck was referring to what?

              What are you talking about?

              Buck lied. To me, to you, to all of us. Right now you don’t seem to care, because you think Buck is telling you the truth and just lying to the rest of us. But how will you feel when you finally, at long last, realize he’s been lying to you as well? Will you feel dirty? Will you feel used? Will you feel hurt?

          2. Very simply, you lie. What a pitiful dweeb you are! You lie when you tell us one thing in Colorado and do another in Washington. You lie when you run your ad against Ken Buck. Even the MSM says you lie. You lie when you suggest Ken Buck will have any impact whatsoever on birth control. Give me a break!  

            1. But I suppose if you repeat some other charge often enough, people might not notice.

              Ken Buck promised to introduce a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion. What else will he lie about?

        3. is that Buck wants to defund government and hand over control of our country to the corporations under the guise of helping Joe SixPack.

          Under an ideal Buck scenario there will be no slurry bombers and hot shot crews available to help fight forest fires because the National Forest Service will no longer be funded except in conjunction with some partnership with the timber corporations.

          The guy is an anti-government darling who can’t wait to get to Congress to start voting no.  It doesn’t matter which position he takes regarding the sources of government revenue.  In his cold blooded heart he is against all of them.  The ultimate Tea Party agenda is to defund government (drown it in a bathtub) and this schlep is one of their favorites.  

          1. If Buck told the Workers World Weekly that he wanted the proletariat to throw off their chains and seize power through a violent revolution while putting all the bosses up against the firing squad wall, it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest.

            Buck doesn’t REALLY believe anything. He’s up in the polls and STILL lying, which tells me it’s just pathological for him at this point. I honestly believe he has a psychological disorder.

            1. Very simply, you lie. What a pitiful dweeb you are! You lie when you tell us one thing in Colorado and do another in Washington. You lie when you run your ad against Ken Buck. Even the MSM says you lie. You lie when you suggest Ken Buck will have any impact whatsoever on birth control. Give me a break!  

              1. It’s kinda stupid, but not clever (not unlike your use of the nickname “Mikey”).  Why post it so many times?  If you’re trying to draw attention to how not clever you are, you could’ve just kept posting random crap you just made up.  You didn’t have to do all that copying and pasting.  That’s just spam.

                No one wants you to wear yourself out.

                Oh, and your sig line makes no sense at all.  When talking about any sitting, or candidate for, senator.

    2. “What do you think about xxx?” is not an interesting question for Buck. He will tell you whatever you want to hear (and he clearly snowed you in your interview by doing this).

      The only questions Buck should be asked is “Why did you change your position on xxx and then lie about it later? And why should anyone believe you’re telling the truth now?”

  3. Wow. Awesome catch by glasscup, and nice turnaround by Pols.

    Buck is indisputably lying about at least one, more likely several of his prior positions. If he’s exonerated on one part of his answer it implicates him in another.

    This is a very big deal, voters of all stripes don’t like being lied to. And you can’t spin him out of the obvious lie he’s trapped in.

    Bravo…

    1. Does he approve of the president’s agenda? Do his votes in Washington match what he says in Colorado? Trying to nail Bennet down to a position is like trying to pin water to a wall.

          1. I read them.

            Maybe make them shinier so you notice them?

            Stating the same argument over and over, without addressing the logic presented in the counter argument, does not magically make your argument correct.

            If it did I’d post more.  Every where.  But only things with some kind of point.

        2. Very simply, you lie. What a pitiful dweeb you are! You lie when you tell us one thing in Colorado and do another in Washington. You lie when you run your ad against Ken Buck. Even the MSM says you lie. You lie when you suggest Ken Buck will have any impact whatsoever on birth control. Give me a break!  

      2. is not a climate change denier.  When it comes to ‘over the horizon’ comprehension, Bennet is light years ahead of Buck in understanding our precarious environmental situations and is open to finding ways to adapt to a changing environment.  Buck not so much.

    2. I thought the Harwood interview was interesting as well.  That is why I posted it for you. Buck has expressed multiple opinions over the last 10 months about the best way to migrate our overly complex tax system to one that makes more sense.

      This is indeed a big deal, but I suspect not for the reasons that you expressed.

  4. That was then, this is now.  If you want to know what he thinks tomorrow, you’ll just have to hold your horses until he gets his next set of talking points.

    1. he won’t tell you. He’ll just say we need to have a “discussion” about it. I’d like to know whether he thinks the president’s endorsement is a good thing or not. Seems like just a few months ago Obama was the hottest thing since sliced bread. Now all of a sudden Washington is broken and corrupt, and neither hide nor hair of Obama is to be found anywhere near Bennet.

      1. Discussions before opening mouth to talk about subject ignorant on=bad.

        That’s apparently what we’re talking about, according to you and H-man.  If you want to talk about Obama’s endorsement, write a diary or start a thread in the Open.

        2. Notice, without a shred of evidence to back up his ridiculous assertion (hmm, like a video say), he excuses Buck’s opinion du jour as okie-dokie ‘cuz Bennet does it too.  

  5. little integrity Ken Buck has. He has recreated himself as a fictionaly moderate candidate, but everything up until this point had “tea party extremist” all over it. Sure, candidates tend to lean a little more toward their own party in primaries and then toward the center in the general. But with Buck, they are extreme shifts. He is being completely disingenuous about his history.

    1. I’m shocked.

      See the difference with the whole actual argument and stated opinion thing I was talking about?  This is a great example.

      nancycronk’s next diary to read:  “Ken Buck: Unethical Old Lady Runner Over”.  I’ve never heard him against it.

      Now, something to add to the discussion?  We’ll wait…

  6. If I read correctly, too, he thinks only the US has income tax on corporations. “It puts us at a disadvantage.”  DOH, Mr. Stupido, things like having to pay for employee health insurance puts us at a disadvantage.

    2. The U.S. has the second highest corporate tax in the world.  It is no wonder jobs move elsewhere.  Between taxes and regulation, many companies can’t make it here.

      1. In fact, we’re no where near the top.

        Of the 275 publicly traded Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from 2001 to 2003  in 2003, the average effective tax rate was less than 17%, which placed the US  in the third quintile of the biggest 100 economies in the world.

        TaxFoundation

        CBO

        The World Bank

  7. And because Colopols and/or NC can’t, does not make something a lie, it just makes it more complicated than they can understand. I am sure they are used to it.

    These are all opinions about trying to reform our tax code that have multiple consequences, some internal fairness, some trade considerations and are not subject to simple answers.

    Is it possible to consider things differently over the course of nine months without lying?  In my world it is.  Perhaps not in yours.

    If anybody thinks 90% of the population gets or cares about this, I think you are mistaken.  This is not a gotch moment.  A gotch moment needs to be simple and something everyone can understand. If you want to see what one of them looks like, see below:

    1. Neither of these statements are lies just because everyone but you is too simple to understand the underlying concept.

      At the same time,

      Is it possible to consider things differently over the course of nine months without lying?

      meaning that it’s not the complicated nature of either reasoning, but that the issue is actually being considered differently.

      Before developing too high of an opinion of your own intelligence, please take a moment to read your posts.  Thanks.

      Oh, and a tip for Buck apparently.  If you’re changing a stance, it’s best to acknowledge your old stance before even talking about it.  Otherwise you look like a liar.  Or, to conservatives, like you haven’t always understood the issue.

      1. not a tax lawyer. I don’t expect to immediately have a detailed understanding of the minutiae of tax policy. I expect him to understand the general problem that the government is overspending, which will lead to higher taxes, and that this must be stopped. I then expect him to consider all the different proposals to reform our tax system and settle on one which will best achieve this overall goal and work best for everyone.

        1. This is not a vote early and often situation.

          We get it.  Buck ain’t the sharpest knife in the drawer… or brightest bulb in the pack.  I’ll settle on one and let you know.  (Unless it’s both)

          OK, seriously.  This kind of shit is why I hate politics.  Let’s assume you’re right.  What you just said is that it’s OK for idiots to talk about what they know nothing about.  Thank god he wasn’t in a position to do anything about it, eh?  Is this how he’ll always approach a situation?  Are you saying he’ll knee jerk vote for whatever sounds good at the time, without benefit of research?

          That’s rhetorical of course.  You’ve already answered several times.  Make a judgement first, research later.

      2. Big lie?  Policy change?  Here is the context:

        Q: Ken, what would you propose, stand for and defend to reform our tax code?

        Buck: Boy, I’ll tell you, I think our tax code is a disaster.  I think we have picked winners and losers for years and it is absolutely wrong.

        ColoradoPols quote:

        (I don’t think the income tax is a good idea.  I think a national sales tax, a consumption tax, a FAIR tax is a better idea. [Pols emphasis]  I think a flat tax is a better idea than what we’ve got now.)

        This is one of those areas where I think it is essential to find the coalition in the United States Senate that will find improvement.  Standing with five other Senators for a national sales tax isn’t going to be good enough.  I will not allow the current situation to exist by having my feet stuck in concrete with, “I have got the only right answer to this”.  We have got to find a way to simply the tax code that we have now, or drastically change it.  I just don’t know whether there is the political will in Washington DC to adopt something like the national sales tax or FAIR tax.  

        And so I am flexible on this question and I am not trying to avoid the question or not take a strong stand on it, but I really feel we have such a disastrous tax policy right now that moving it towards simplification moving it towards a flat tax or a system that doesn’t have all the loop holes that we now have is an improvement. And I am willing to take an improvement even if I can’t get everything that I want which would be more along the lines of a sales tax,which I also think frankly is going to end up to be very complicated.  We’ve got to at least recognize the difference in income levels in even a sales tax. It is something that I recognize a problem;I am just not sure whether there aren’t several different solutions to that problem.

        1. As I posted in response to your paste job above,

          You are still dodging the issue at hand. It’s ridiculous, and you’re not helping Buck.

          Nobody claims that Buck didn’t elaborate on his answer. John Harwood, asked Buck if he thought in principle a national sales tax, or a FAIR tax would be better, and Buck replied “No, I’ve never said I think it would be better.”

          The second video clip is of Buck says he thinks a national sales tax would be better.

          It does not matter if he explains afterward to the teabaggers that there is little support in DC for a national sales tax. He said very explicitly he thought these proposals were better than the income tax. And that makes his answer to Harwood A LIE.

          See how easy this is when you’re not trying to deny the obvious truth?

          See? I can copy and paste too. Perhaps you should try original arguments?

        3. So I’m going off of what Buck supporter, and all around smart guy, bjwilson83 is telling me.  You know, that Buck doesn’t research before taking positions and now wants a job where his knee jerk actions have for realsies consequences to the entire nation.

    2. Is it possible to consider things differently over the course of nine months without lying?

      Certainly. But that is not what this post is about.

      Buck said

      I think a national sales tax, a consumption tax, a FAIR tax is a better idea.

      And then he said

      No, I’ve never said I think it would be better.

      Buck did not say he changed his mind, or that he has come to “consider things differently.” He said he never said what he indeed said. That is a lie.

    1. has to explain anything.

      The problem with the “this is too complicated” reasoning here is that understanding isn’t needed.  What you have are two clips with similar wording, where he says one thing in one and the opposite in the other.

      At worst, in a fact checking segment, this is “true, but misleading.”  That’s even a stretch.

      Do you see how well this fits into a commercial now?  Even without benefit of explanation?  People are more concerned with not trusting politicians, sadly not about what they are saying.  See GOP gubernatorial race, start to now.

        1. then thinks them over and gives a better one.

          Now you’re saying that he rolls out of bed with them.

          Pick one.

          I’m going with Bennet does this all the time and you’re admitting that Buck rolls out of bed to make fiscal decisions without researching them.

          Maybe you should stop “helping” Buck now.  It’s not working.

          Or at least read all your posts before posting the next one.  Make sure you stick with your theme.

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

84 readers online now

Newsletter

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