President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 12, 2010 09:32 AM UTC
120 Comments
And during the primary he fully supported prop 62. His own words were used against him and I would argue it was the groups that supported him ( Rove ) that used a deceitful misleading media campaign against Bennet. A waste of money that didn’t work in support of a radical right wing failed candidate.Given the radical points of view expressed by the right wing candidates I would also say that wacko teabaggers are far more dangerous.
So glad Bennet the decent candidate won!
The crazy right to life freaks are!
I have never been involved with anything tea party related up to this point. Please give a common viewpoint of the tea party that you find unreasonable. You can’t because you are just spouting off about a group you have been trained to hate.
Here I will give one for the anti-birth control Nazis, they want to take away common forms of birth control. I think that’s enough now quit costing conservatives elections.
that is unreasonable. They refer to children of illegal imigrants as anchor babies that is unreasonable and insulting. Last spring during the health care vote they spit on Afro
American congresssmen and called the “niggers”that is unreasonable, offensive and below the dignity of any true human being.No one has to be trained to hate these teabaggers, they exhibit hate in their actions. Conservatives deserve to lose elections with these right wing wacko teabaggers as their allies.
Please put proof of the spitting incident up! Did you witness it? Are you able to prove something that no one else has ever been able to? You know that was a hoax and you lost a lot of credibility by even bringing that up. Do you want rational discussion or not? Then come out of your make believe land and talk. Where are the “normal” Democrats to talk some sense into your buddy here?
It is called national sovereignty. I don’t believe the 14th amendment actually provides citizenship to illegal aliens. Illegal alien babies born from illegal aliens should be illegal aliens, no matter where they are born.
So the term anchor baby is offensive if it is used by the right? What would be the correct pc term? Just because it makes you feel good inside does not mean it is the best choice for our nation.
Why do you dems try so hard to misrepresent views of good law abiding citizens?
And the US Judiciary empowered therein?
And I choose to believe the Congressmen over tea partiers. That you disagree makes me more certain.
I think it is the wrong decision based off of political agendas not the intent of the founders.
Believe what you want to believe, but please back it up and you can’t. With all those people and cameras there was no proof. Ok who has seen the Seinfeld with Kramer, Newman, and Keith Hernandez? Classic!
have to do with the 14th amendment?
Classic!
Slavery.
Voting.
Elections (repeal the 12th).
Everything. And even if they didn’t write the 14th, you know they would have and they inspired it.
I was speaking in regards to their intentions and directions for the nation they founded.
about amending the Constitution? And Article III and all that?
Just as you presumably were born in this country and are an American citizen, so too are the children of immigrants. That’s in the Constitution. You are hardly the best to represent the “good law abiding citizens” if you hold views that try to expunge legal rights of the newborns that are born in this country. Once upon a time, you were a newborn, too. Regardless of where your parents are from, being born here makes you an American. Period.
You are missing two major differences.
A) My parents are not illegal immigrants!
B) My parents did not creep across the border for the sole purpose of having the baby so that it may be a citizen.
Next bullshit argument?
I am confused!
And Buck is nothing if not one heck of a “crazy (teapartying) right to life freak.”
Petard. Hoist.
I understand what you are trying to do, and I appreciate your concept; however the two groups are diametric opposites.
Code Pink stands for peace and anti-war demonstrations and protests by women.
The Amendment 62 groups are anti-choice and anti-contraceptives people who want to dictate how women will handle their personal health care, actually dictate by law that women have no choice in their own lives; truely anti-women.
Just goes to show you that there are crazies on the left and on the right. I would argue there just tends to be more on the left.
Pam you are against killing if it is war, but ok if it is in the womb? How about when we have to fight all the bad people we have to fight to remain free we just call it abortion or a woman’s choice if we have a female president?
Pam why are you against the death penalty for the rapist, but for the death penalty for the unborn child?
Pam is it conflicting to be anti-war, but pro abortion?
What in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are you going on about?
What is this rant? It sounds rather hysterical.
Thanks, I wanted an honest answer and an open dialogue, but you seem to be playing games.
a) she’s not pro abortion. I defy you to find anyone who is.
b) she’s never said she’s against fighting, or even killing, to defend the US and “our” freedom. In fact, I think she volunteered to do so. Like you did, right?
You don’t like the little word game turned around on you do you?
have the right to determine what happens to your body. If you can’t then you can’t impede on the sovereignty of a woman over her body.
If you are a real republican, you don’t want the government involved in personal choice. I guess you are a commie because you want to give the government control over a woman’s body.
I agree with your first paragraph to a certain extent if I understand you correctly. I support a woman’s choice to choose for the most part yes. Is there some post where I do not make that clear and I need to clarify yet again?
I don’t know what to make of the real republican and commie statements, but I am against government control of a woman’s body for the most part.
I don’t know for sure, but based off of what you are posting I don’t think you read my diary or posts, or your comprehension maybe lacking.
WTF “for the most part”, either you respect a woman’s sovereignty over her body or you don’t.
Ever hear of the word, “mostly”? It is short and effective. Try using it…it will make you seem smarter.
Just a tip. No thanks necessary. 🙂
At what point is it still abortion? Are all methods approved techniques? Sure in principle I am for a woman to choose anything she wants for her body, but I think we can only go so far. Are we ok if a pregnant mother drinks a bottle of whiskey and smokes a carton of camels everyday?
It is such a complex issue and I don’t pretend to have all the answers.
Repeal the repeal of prohibition!
wacko right to lifers, who feel it is ok to murder doctors in a church to an anti war group that has not committed violence against anyone.
Now yes code pinkers have not killed anybody, but does that mean they are a sane organization of women? No, they are mostly a group full of nuts and overall a disgrace to the left and our country. I was not comparing actions of some in the two groups, but more how their ideals are not mainstream and detrimental to their parties.
Not only do they not think correctly, but they are always trying to assert some power over their candidates, which never goes well for the candidates because the candidate is either labeled as a nut job like the group, or they rightfully shuns them and they start attacking the candidate.
For their troubling beliefs and actions!
that isn’t a troubling belief.
inconsistent squishes. I’m personally in favor of killing in the womb, killing in war and killing criminals. Guess what, I’m the only one that is consistent. Frankly, if you look at the polls, I’m probably in the majority on all three issues, and you two are the fringes. Hahahahahahaha.
I’m pro-abortion when that is what the woman desires.
“I am pro-death, I am pro-choice, I am pro-death penalty, pro-assisted suicide, I am pro-regular suicide. I am pro-anything that will get the freeway moving faster.”
-Bill Maher
I have killed thousands of mosquitos and houseflies over the years. I thought the deal was that we are supposed to be selective about it. That’s why I limit my murderous activity to bugs.
On the other hand, many at COGA and the GJ Chamber of Commerce (not to mention the Republican Caucus, in general) have called me a “traitor” and “sympathizer to mid-eastern Muslim terrorists”. As far as they are concerned, my work to institute new O&G rules and to protect the Roan Plateau make me an accessory to murder…
So…. I am not at all surprised by No2Dems asinine insinuations. It goes with the territory. I mean, his/her username kinda says it all…doesn’t it?
You are mistaken. The crazies at CRTL and American Right to Life are pro-contraception and anti-birth control. There is a difference, isn’t there?
BTW, Code Pink stands for really, really radically ignorant babes.
She’s baaaack!
Ken Buck was a flip-flopping, lying con man. He made the mistake of repeating his lies in front of cameras.
To wit: Ken Buck told the Tea Party Convention he supported privatizing the VA. He then told the United Veterans Committee he supported fully funding the VA.
When videotape emerged of him shooting his mouth off at the Tea Party convention, he flipped again and weaseled out it by saying he favored “partial privatization” of the VA. (And he didn’t even man up and do it himself – he sent out a flunkie.)
Result – Ken Buck lied to the biggest vet group in the State. PERIOD.
No one “smeared” the Buckpedaler. No one needed to. He did all by himself by being a con man and saying whatever he thought people needed to hear.
The vets deserve better than what they are getting. I’m not going to get into the private vs govt control of operations because you and I will never agree. It is a cyclical argument. I think your quote proves my beliefs, but hey you reap what you have sow.
I understand your statement, but the issue you brought up is not what kept votes from Buck and that is what I am focusing on in this diary.
Agree or Disagree?
Beliefs of the Right to Life groups are not main stream and are detrimental to Republican candidates?
I agree, therefore I think those crazies should go away and stop costing conservatives elections by trying to force this issue as a defining characteristic of conservatism. There that’s pretty easy and straight forward ain’t it?
Hmmm, interesting way to describe them. So your view is that abortion is wrong, and should be illegal, but it should not be a political issue, and certainly never a campaign issue because it’s a loser in most elections.
Sounds sort of… disingenuous. I believe XYZ, but I’m going to ignore that because if I campaign on it honestly, I’ll lose. Oh, and please don’t bring it up, wink, wink, ’cause you know I’m with you so vote for me anyway.
Do you guys read my posts or just assume all the time? Read! I think my writings will show you the opposite and that it should not be illegal.
My stance is simple!
•I hate abortion! I think it is very, very, very bad!
•No tax payer money whatsoever!
•Should not be illegal, although i would prefer some agreement or consideration regarding late term abortions.
•Not a defining issue of our conservative movement.
Simple enough?
How can you believe so strongly that something is so wrong but also believe it should not be illegal? How can you in your comment above with Pam, refer to it as murder, but not think murder should be illegal??
That seems very disingenuous. Perhaps you should look up disingenuous in the ol’ dictionary and take a looksie.
At least Buck ran on his beliefs. At least Buck told the citizens of Colorado exactly who he was and what his values were. Colorado rejected him and his values. They saw him and his values as too extreme. They have sent this same message to the RTLers a couple times.
I don’t see that part!
But on this point, and on this point alone, he fails:
This is after all the same position on abortion as that of the late Ted Kennedy and probably a majority of americans, including myself: That I am personally opposed to abortion but believe in the political realm it is a decision best left to the invididual woman, her family, and their physicians.
And even No2Reason’s final point, some limits on third trimester abortions, is wholly congruent with Roe v. Wade.
As I say, our surviving troll tries very hard to be a total idiot. On the abortion issue, however, he has only succeeded in being as conflicted between his personal views and his political position as the majority of Americans.
Like so many Americans. When it comes to making policy, or even politics, we set our personal feelings aside.
As a gay man, I will personally never be forced to deal with this ridiculously tough situation within my own immediate family. However, I do have sisters who should have the ability to make these decisions with their husbands and physicians. Not their Congressmen or Senators.
I know a lot of gays who have children, by adoption or from previous marriages (36,000 in California, according to the Court decision there in the gay marriage case. That’s based on 2000 census figures. Given that gay marriage was just not discussed much prior to the Mass ruling in 2004, I expect the number to be much higher in 2010, though I don’t pretend to foresee your own intentions. But if you do end up with a daughter, you may face the same situation we did when an 18-y-0 daughter became pregnant. She was militant pro-choice politically — bumper stickers on her car, etc. And when push came to shove, she refused to have an abortion. (In the end, she had a miscarriage due to the Rh factor.)
Personally, anti-abortion. Politically, pro-choice. Yes, that’s No2Reason’s position, as much as it pains him to say it.
So your good with a pro-choice candidate. Cool. Which ones did you support in the last campaign?
Certain pro-lifers yes. There were no instances where this came into play last election in my opinion. And how am I not standing up for my beliefs ek? Abortion is a bad thing, but should not be illegal. But even more importantly birth control should not even be up for debate!
conservatives, No2Dems, because, in today’s GOP, they won’t make it through a primary. Those who share your stance on this issue and get the chance to run in general elections are Democrats. Your position is the same as that of Dems such as Ken Salazar and more pro-choice than Governor Ritter’s. The only reason pro-choice women were willing to support him was because he 1) promised not to make ending abortion rights a priority at all and 2) Governor is an executive rather than a legislating elected office so supporting him was less problematic than it would have been had he been running for Senator.
I don’t think it’s fair for us to attack you for stances that are common to many of the Dems we find it in our hearts to support. And it’s not as if you don’t supply us with plenty of other reasons. As for Code Pink? I don’t think they do progressive causes any good whatsoever.
Well, we agree on that part.
As for what defines your movement, well, I don’t think that’s going to be either you or me.
If the conserRvative movement sheds the anti choice crowd, the litmus test for judges crowd, you better start working hard on your minority strategies.
Conservatives should be the following:
Color blind
Genital blind
Sex blind
Etc, etc, etc
We shall not pander. Our fundamental beliefs of limited constitutional government, private property rights, and free market principles are the right choice and if followed correctly will lead everybody to join with us. We don’t need to change our philosophies to make “minorities” like us, we need to explain our principles in clear, concise and articulate ways and lead the people by example.
We can not cater to this group or that group because in the end it is not what is right for our nation and we will never be better at it than the Democrats.
Ok say what you want now, and have your fun with this post, but don’t expect a response if you post nonsense.
if the R’s shed the RTL/litmus test for judges crowd, R’s will be the minority. For many cycles.
If instead you take it underground, it will be called out as the dog whistle politics it is.
You can’t shed them and win.
You gotta find another way….”it’s the settled law of the land” for example, instead of I will cosponsor a Constitutional amendment
I agree up to a certain point and maybe I am just being naive, but some sort of a compromise would have to be worked out. Although I am not sure of how many staunch pro-lifers are in the senate right now, sorry I know I should know better.
I don’t see how being the minority in that area would totally affect us because the libs would not join with the pro-lifers. So what are we losing? Plus the benefits of the true conservative principles in action would be so wonderful that it maybe worth it.
1+1+1 =3. It always has and always will.
2+2 =4. or 1+1+2 or 1+1+1+1.
The R party in the current era includes the RTL/litmus test for judges crowd. They are a minority of all Americans, a minority of all voters, and it is just one issue of many the R’s have tried to make their’s.
But, if the R party distances it self from that issue – you lose those numbers. And 4 becomes 3, and in the purple (swing) districts, you lose.
Now, if I was running the campaign for prochoice D (safe, legal, rare) against a RTL/LTFJ R, in a swing district where more than 50% + 1 of the voters were (SLR) prochoice I’d run that issue as hard as I could.
And I would never look up to even see if the R was “running on” that issue. I’d make him (her).
See?
It’s settled law of the land, between a dr and patient, etc are all better than
sponsor an amendment or yes, I support A62. Or whatever.
Veterans and their families represent 12% of the population of the State. The UVC is the only vet group in the US that meets monthly will all the major veterans groups, and then meets with the State Legislature and the Governor.
EVERYTHING discussed or presented at the UVC gets back to the vets groups, and then their members. The fact that he lied to UVC turned a LOT of R vets against Buck. I heard some Drill-quality profanity about Buck at my DAV chapter prior to the election, and they’re hard-core Repubs.
But your Buckpedal Apologist comments hurt what is an excellent diary about the Repub/Con obsession with RTL Issues. If there’s a comparison, it’s the equivalent of Dems obsession with Gun Control in the 90’s. It a losing issue, but unlike the Repubs, they’ve since run away from it.
Sorry, I don’t disagree that he did not lose a certain number of votes because of the issue you brought up. However, my main question is why did other republicans get more votes than Ken Buck and I dont believe it was the issue you speak of. I don’t think your issue swayed the election either way. For example there was not near the money spent on ads to trumpet your accusation.
Do we really need to repost the video of him shooting off his mouth in Pueblo? Or the news stories of him Buckpedaling after the media got the story?
Colorado Voters are a savvy bunch, regardless of Party affiliation. Just look at Ref C & D. Voters of all ideologies looked at the two candidates and decided they could go with the one that was consistent, moderate and sane. Someone that changes their story that many times does not inspire faith that he’ll represent a particular voter’s interests when they get to DC.
I posted the “colorful” comments of a long-time female conservative I know regarding Ken Buck. Many other R’s have expressed similar sentiment.
And that’s why he lost. Invent a new reason to apologize for his dismal campaign.
As far as the ads go, if Buck had not had provided so many other divisive issues, they would’ve ran ads non-stop about his “privatize the VA” comments. VoteVets and one Union group did do some ads, and probably would’ve done more.
He was a shitty candidate. He lost. Get over it.
No2Facts falsely wrote that the Dems did the following to defeat Buck:
Um, that’s all true: Buck (a) backed 62 in the primary (before transparently backpedaling in the general), and (b) said he opposes abortion for rape victims and incest victims. Those are facts; nobody misled anyone about Buck’s very conservative abortion stance.
How is it “misleading” to say this view is “too extreme for Colorado” given that you concede Buck suffered electorally based on these views he adopted?
In short: what do you say was false that the Dems said about Buck?
n/t (because of the n/response from n/toDems)
Raise taxes 23 percent, privatize social security, and rape case issues. Not necessarily lies, but misrepresentations of facts if you will! Buck did not campaign on those issues, just like Bennet did not on his voting record. Buck did not really adopt the views as much as he was saddled with them by the left and the rtl crowd.
Yes those are his words, but nit the full meaning of, and how they were portrayed was in my opinion unfair I am not going to beat a dead horse, so I am not goimg to get further into it.
Quoth No2Dems, wannabe press secretary for Ken Buck:
It’s too bad Buck didn’t run a commercial with your defense: “I’m Ken Buck and I approved this message: Those stances against contraception and against social security that my opponent quoted me taking — they’re my words, but not my full meaning.” If only he’d said that to “clarify,” he.. well, then he would’ve lost by a lot more than 1 point.
But thanks for admitting my entire two-part point:
(1) That when you say Dems “misrepresented” Buck’s views, they in fact were quoting “his words.”
(2) That the Dems were quoting Buck’s views on issues “Buck did not campaign on” — for the obvious reason that Buck damn well knew Colorado wouldn’t like a Senator with those views. In other words, Buck agrees with Bennet’s commercial tagline — that Buck’s views were too extreme for Colorado voters.
You silly rascal…but not really. You are misinterpreting my point on purpose or I am not able to put it into the correct words, but either way I’m done with our discussion.
He got ya, dude.
Back to debate class.
They accused me of saying abortion should be illegal and mentioned something about me comparing abortion to murder? I asked them to find the quotes where I said that and they have not done so!
Can anybody help them or is it pretty obvious that they just say anything they can think of to try to further their causes?
EK and MADCO, ignore this guy.
If you don’t think it’s murder…Why do you think it is wrong? Why are you so against it? I don’t think it was any stretch for us to assume you believed it was murder as you asked Pam Bennet:
So to sum up:
-You “hate abortion!” You “think it is very, very, very bad!”.
-You do not think it should be illegal.
-You, apparently, don’t see it as murder.
I can only equate your stance on abortion to mine for onions. I hate onions but don’t think they should be illegal. That makes me pro-choice for onions.
Get it?
Adopt some kids, do some (more?) volunteer work.
And leave me alone, No2sense.
How dare you stray from Republican orthodoxy? You must never do so. You are permanently branded as a RINO. You simply will not be allowed to participate in any meaningful way in the Republican Party in the future. Traitor. This is the most important issue for all Republicans. If you aren’t for burning the anti-life faction at the stake, you are a worthless pro-choice stalking horse. You are worse that the anti-lifers themselves.Shame, shame. Go to your Priest and ask for forgiveness immediately. Ask for absolution. You disgust me.
Source: Dan Maes
For most Republicans. Sure there are a few single issue voters in our party, but the same could probably said for yours.
I don’t think this makes me a RINO at all and I like the gun control in the 90’s analogy.
I know you are partially joking, but see how far you can take that issue. It is scary how bad it makes us sound. I mock liberals for thinking that just because something makes us feel good inside it must be the way the nation is ran, but with this issue it is Republicans. Conservatives don’t like being told what to do, but on this issue we have decided we now know what is best for mankind and think we should impose our will. I don’t think so, and I know there are others out there.
On a side note…seriously there is not one other conservative posting on this site? I thought at least one would come out against me or in support. Yikes I have never felt so alone!
You’re “pro-life.” Why? Is it because you think abortion is murder (that is, an unlawful killing of a human being)? If so, why wouldn’t you want to see the government prohibit and punish abortion? Or, put another way, are there other categories of murder that you think the government should permit?
With it not being murder, but later on it gets a little more hazy for me. I want to think that it is a medical procedure, however in any case the decision should not be taken lightly by either the doctor or the woman or even the man. Maybe this example will kinda help you understand my position, although I suspect you are attempting to get me into some kind of “gotcha” moment, I think adultery is a bad thing, but should not be a criminal violation per se.
Or maybe you can follow me along this line of thinking. Suicide is a terrible thing, but there are certain cases where we as “society” can look and be like well that was unfortunate, but under a similar case can envision ourselves doing the same thing. Doesn’t mean it was a good thing, but somewhat “understandable.” Obviously legal issues ramifications are different with a suicide.
So let’s try this. I am pro-life and think every single person should be, however i do not think people should be compelled by government to be so.
How many successive election cycles have featured social issues such as abortion that served to motivate the wingnut right to make it to the polls? How many votes did R majorities hold on social issues in order to force D’s to vote on something that the R’s would then use in the campaign.
Finally the D’s ran somebody with a spine who was willing to point out that the wingnut R position on these social issues is way out of touch. R’s actually coopted the wingnuts in order to win elections. But finally an R lost because social wingnuttery is seen as vile by most of the public.
And so NOW we have a wingnut R trying to argue that other wingnuts are bad for R’s.
Fail. Wingnut R’s are bad for America, not just R’s.
“…the Democrats are extremely efficient at smearing Republicans and misleading the public.”
Um, that street runs both ways buddy. Both ways.
He has a ways to go.
when someone comes up with something that pleases you libs, it is okay? Why can’t you tolerate diversity?
Them more if we kept beating the drum of the anti-birth control crowd because that means more tax and spend
Democrats in higher office against the will of conservatives.
I do find it slightly ironic that my virgin anti-GOP mission statement gets front-paged, but it had to be said. I forsee a future diary on the Libertarian Losers next. Voy any input on that subject or is it not mainstream enough?
I also need to get something off of my chest. Granted a small part of this post maybe about whining and blaming a heart breaking loss on something, but the biggest part of my writings is trying to persuade my fellow party members to assess the past and analyze what works and what does not to prevent any other future losses. A small part of it also maybe a warning to you Dems that the conservative movement was way bigger than Ken Buck, and Tom Tancredo and you have defeated those candidates, but we conservatives have not given up and we will continue to push on. The success of our movement was not be gauged by just a few candidates, but as a whole and as a whole we had a pretty damn good election.
FYI Marilou, it is nice to see a fellow conservative still operating here.
post a diary like No2dems did that actually raises a serious point and doesn’t automatically parrot some whack job talking points, right or left, and I’ll promote it like I did no2dems’s diary. Of course, if you actually did that, it might be up to David Thi to promote it because I would probably go into cardiac arrest if you actually demonstrated a capacity for critical thinking.
He has some valid points:
Amendment 62 gave GOP candidates the choice between alienating their most enthusiastic base (the Religious Right) by supporting it or looking sane to the rest of us by not supporting it.
Buck didn’t need any help putting his own foot in his mouth, but Amendment 62 being out there gave him more opportunities to eat his foot. The Buck/Bennet race was closer than I wanted it and it’s not unrealistic to think Amendment 62 helped put the spotlight on Buck’s stance on abortion. It’s very probable that the vote count would be different without the spotlight.
I also don’t see why people have a problem with No2Dem’s stance that he believes abortion is immoral but doesn’t think it should be illegal. Hell, I wish more Christian Conservatives thought this way! There are many things that I find immoral that shouldn’t be illegal:
– Farting in a crowded elevator
– Telling old ladies they’re ugly
– Taking Glenn Beck seriously
These are all things that I find immoral. If I found out my kid did any of these things I’d be ashamed and angry with her. I don’t think they should be illegal though.
If Glen Beck farted in an elevator of old women while telling them they are ugly- that should be illegal.
Well done sir. Well done.
You summed up my whole argument so well. I would have never guessed so many dems would have hated my statements, but I understand they are probably blinded by my other opinions.
Interesting fact regarding the demographics on this site!
Not a single Christian social conservative? I doubt any could read this diary and pass up the chance to chime in on our sinning! Must be post election hang over.
Isn’t that an oxymoron? Jesus was a notorious social liberal.
Either you think the government should be more involved (social) or you think the government should have more limited power (conservative).
Pick one ideology and stick with it!
I try to take each diary or comment as is. I’m not going to agree/disagree with someone’s topic just because I agree/disagree with just about everything else they say.
who automatically oppose all statements that are not pre-approved by their ideological gauleiters. Such idealogues usually self-identify themselves by extreme statements and sometimes even in their screen names. As an example of automatically rejecting all ideas because of their source, not their content, the term “No2Dems” comes to mind;-)
I will listen to any ideas, but for the most part I have heard everything you guys have to offer and stand for. And if I have not heard where you guys stand, it is usually pretty easy to figure out. I know that I do not agree with the majority of your positions for several different reasons which I provide in my posts.
So what’s wrong with being honest with your nickname on here? Other than your side would run out of nicknames pretty fast. Is the name No2Dems really that bad?
No2Dems is a great label. But if you want to act, as you have in the last couple of dairies, like a person with serious ideas to discuss, it locks you squarely into the troll category. Your name, your call. But if you notice everybody calls you No2Reason (moi) No2Logic, No2facts, etc. As yea sow, so shall ye reap.
Call me whatever I don’t care. I think i provide valuable thought provoking posts no matter what my name is.
I appreciate the advice, but I am just not all that creative. Any suggestions?
ThebloggerformerlyknownasNo2Dems.
It would be funny, highlight your new non-troll persona and let everyone know who you are.
But dont love it! I also would argue that I have never been a troll, but on the flip side no matter what my name is there are certain drones that will always call me a troll.
But frankly, that’s a distinction without a difference to me. It is only after election that you started into that nuance shit, as George W. Bush might call it.
At least not yet.
You may, and that would be great.
But you have not yet.
You said you would post a diary defining your view of conservatism. I suspect it’s harder than you thought, but either way, that would be useful.
After, you do I’ll post one outlining my view of American progressivism and it’s potential value. If we can discuss either, that might have value.
A combination of senate race and abortion question is really the only way to manage a straight answer from candidates.
Senators are THE elected officials that should lay it on the table about abortion– in addition to passing legislation, they’re the ones that confirm judges and with 6 year terms they’re more likely to carry their views into a new presidential administration. If it takes a wingnut ballot question to fire people up enough on the issue that the candidates are forced into stating their positions, I say its worth it.
Too bad for Republicans that the Dem position is the more electable one. Maybe they should quit nominating such extreme candidates… or go back to nominating sneaky ones.
Other than judges which are pretty few and far between abortion is not an issue that the senate ever deals with. In the history of our country there have only been six votes in the senate directly relating to abortion issues.
This is a major cause of frustration with both parties. I get so angry with the right pretending to be crusaders and the left acting like the whole world is coming to an end.
Each of the past two presidents has appointed about 340 federal judges. If you meant only Sup Ct nominees: well, that’s only a fraction of the relevant judicial nominating power — but do you have the faintest idea how massively different the law would’ve been if a President McCain had replaced Stevens and Souter? For one thing, it’s a dead certainty that Roe v Wade would be reversed. And if President Obama gets a second term, he’ll very likely get 2 more Sup Ct appointments;do you have any idea how many constitutional rulings will flip if President Obama gets to replace Justice Kennedy or Justice Scalia?
Look, clearly the issue isn’t a priority to you, but to those who consider the issue important, the judicial appointment power is a huge deal.
You are exactly right! I was thinking of only the supreme court, but that was a very narrow view.
I’m glad your diary made it to the front page. It was worth the read even if it was a bit too “Buck was a victim who shouldn’t take responsibility for his failures”.
I totally agree with you that reducing unwanted pregnancies is something that can’t be solved by criminalization of a medical procedure. If CRTL spent as much money promoting womens health as they do on pushing criminalization solutions, we might make some progress on the real issue of unwanted pregnancies.
Do the RTLers really want to reduce unwanted pregnancies (meaning that they would reasonably consider supporting contraception, sex-education, etc.) or are they more simply a useful fiction for hammering a wedge issue?
On the one hand Republicans who like to label themselves as Pro-Life and claim to value the lives of all children are the ones who don’t want unemployment benefits extended because it contributes to a nanny state.
How can you want to force a woman to have a child and then not care whether that child starves?
Sending a child to bed cold and hungry is UnAmerican.
Tell the Pro-Life zealots to go fuck themselves.
I don’t think it’s even on their radar. The insane people that run CRTL/ARTL don’t even get into that discussion, preferring to use the sinister sounding word ‘abortifacient’ when talking about modern birth control. Strangely, I really don’t think they’ve thought it out that far.
I imagine the guys that pushed 62 as the dog that so desperately wants to catch the squirrel in the backyard. Everytime they see it and think they can catch it but never actually get close at all. Much like that dog, I’m quite convinced they wouldn’t know what to do if they ever caught that squirrel/rabbit etc.
These people are honestly so single-minded that they actively told their members not to vote for Buck in the weeks before the election in some kind of vain hope he’d re-endorse the amendment.
Much like Code Pink, these guy don’t do their side any good and actually cause harm to people they should be supporting due to their focus.
And thanks for the kind words gilpin!