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
February 13, 2013 02:37 PM UTC

Sen. Mark Scheffel Just Makes Stuff Up

  • 49 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: A reader reports the same openly false statements about HB13-1229 were sent in emails from numerous other Republican legislators, including Rep. Ray Scott and Rep. Kevin Priola. We're working to confirm–bad form, Republicans.
—–
Are you curious why armies of demonstrators are converging on the state Capitol, in a state of panic that Democrats in the Colorado General Assembly are about to enact draconian gun control schemes?

Simple: that's what Republicans are telling them. Like state Sen. Mark Scheffel of Douglas County. Check out this alert from Sen. Scheffel to his constituents, and ask yourself how this kind of mendacity can possibly be justified: 

Dear constituents,

As many of you know, it has been anticipated that Second Amendment issues would dominate the legislature this session and I wanted to update you on recent and upcoming events at the Capitol…

As recently reported, the Democratic majority in the legislature has rolled out an anti-gun initiative that is made up of eight bills. The four upcoming bills are as follows: HB 13-1224, sponsored by state Representative Rhonda Fields (D-42), would ban magazines that hold more than ten rounds; HB13-1226, sponsored by state Representative Clare Levy (D-13), would repeal the current right to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense on a college or university campus; HB13-1228, sponsored by state Representative Lois Court (D-6), would require law-abiding citizens to pay a fee (or gun tax) for a background check when purchasing a firearm; HB13-1229, sponsored by state Representatives Rhonda Fields and Beth McCann (D-8), would prohibit and criminalize the private transfer of firearms. [Pols emphasis]

Sen. Scheffel seems talking about the same HB13-1229 that passed the House Judiciary Committee yesterday on a party-line vote, insofar as that's the bill number he used. But HB13-1229 does not, as anyone who has read even one news story about it knows, "prohibit and criminalize the private transfer of firearms." HB13-1229 requires a background check be performed before a gun is sold or transferred. It does not "prohibit" or "criminalize" the transfer of a firearm, unless the recipient does not pass or fails to complete a background check.

But that's not what Sen. Scheffel told his constituents. Scheffel didn't even say Democrats were effectively prohibiting, or note that such a prohibition would only be in the case of someone failing or not undergoing a Colorado Bureau of Investigations background check. You see, background checks are popular.

Sen. Scheffel told his constituents that Democrats are trying to literally criminalize private gun sales.

Listening to some of the unhinged debate taking place in the House Judiciary Committee yesterday, it's reasonable to wonder how these presumably honest and decent citizens got such crazy misinformed ideas about the actual proposals on reducing gun violence being debated.

Seeing this inexcusably deceptive message from a sitting Colorado senator, we think we've figured it out.

Tweet
Share

Comments

49 thoughts on “Sen. Mark Scheffel Just Makes Stuff Up”

  1. I'm signed up for just about all of the legislators email lists. I got this from at least a dozen of them. I imagine it was created by the minority leadership office. 

    1. With the same language about HB13-1229? Interesting. Scott McInnis action?

      If you're right, that only proves the point. Republicans are lying to their base and whipping them into a frenzy. Beyond disgusting…

      1. I received this exact language, word for word, from Rep. Scott and Rep. Priola just within the last 24 hours. Rep. Priola also posted it on Facebook. 

    2. Kevin Priola posted in Colorado Legislators

      We need you to come to the state Capitol on...

      Kevin Priola

      9:28am Feb 10

      We need you to come to the state Capitol on Tuesday, February 12 and Wednesday, February 13 to show your opposition and speak against the following anti-gun bills:

      On Tuesday, February 12, House Bill 13-1224 and House Bill 13-1229 are scheduled to be heard in the House Judiciary Committee in the Old Supreme Court Chamber in the Capitol upon adjournment of the House. HB13-1224, sponsored by state Representative Rhonda Fields (D-42), would ban magazines that hold more than ten rounds. HB13-1229, sponsored by state Representatives Rhonda Fields and Beth McCann (D-8), would prohibit and criminalize the private transfer of firearms.

      On Wednesday, February 13 House Bill 13-1226 will be heard by the House Education Committee upon adjournment in the Old Supreme Court Chamber, and House Bill 13-1228 will be heard by the House Finance Committee at 1:30 pm in the Old Supreme Court Chamber. HB13-1226, sponsored by state Representative Clare Levy (D-13), would repeal the current right to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense on a college or university campus. HB13-1228, sponsored by state Representative Lois Court (D-6), would require law-abiding citizens to pay a fee (or gun tax) for a background check when purchasing a firearm.

      We need you to come to the state Capitol on Tuesday, February 12 and Wednesday, February 13 to tell state legislators, especially those serving on these committees, to vote NO on HB13-1224, HB13-1226, HB13-1228 and HB13-1229. Without your direct help this next week, these anti-gun legislators will steal away your Second Amendment rights! Please come to the state Capitol in Denver no later than 9:00 am to respectfully protect your rights.

      1. The above was sent to me in an email from Rep. Ray Scott. 

        Unfortunately, the group itself is locked, so I couldn't get a screen shot of the post itself in the group. 

          2. It's Death Panels all over again Jeffco.

             

            Their philosophy is that If you don't have a coherent argument then lie and lie someore.  There will be 47% who will absolutely believe any lie you tell them.

    1. Actually I would like to see some gun insurance like car insurance to pay to clean up the carnage.  Anyone killed by a gun either murdered, accidental or self-inflicted gets an all-expenses paid funeral.  They could also use the money to pay for safety classes and gun buy backs.  It's about time gun owners start paying for the consequences of their toy obsession.

  5. I look forward to you having the same dedication to unemotional and honest debate the next time the Dems decide to scare seniors on entitlement reform. 

    /sarcasm 

    2. You mean by telling them Republicans' actual plans for entitlement reform? See that's the difference, Elliot.  Unlike Rs, we don't have to make up stuff to attack.  You know…like imaginary Kenyan, Marxist, secret Muslim Presidents who hate white people such as their own moms and want to destroy capitalism and take away everyone's guns.  We can debate real R policy and proposals and if those real policies scare people, well, that's because they're pretty scary.

        1. As usual, you don't address what I've said so I'm not the one with the problem.  There are two problems with your responses.   They don't directly address comments and exaggerate the extent of the calling out you cite.

          There's a reason that righties almost always seek to set up straw dogs, change the subject, deflect and obfuscate instead of engaging in direct debate on the issues.  The fact that they so often avoid answering arguments directly and have to create highly exaggerated or completely fictional versions of facts, policies, and people to attack in lieu of those with which they are presented by…ummm… reality shows that, deep down (and not very deep at that),  righties themselves just don't have enough confidence in the things they say they believe.

          It's as though you are all little kids getting older and trying very hard not to notice that Santa turns up all over the place at the same time or that the tooth fairy who left you money while you pretended to be asleep looked just like daddy.  A tad pathetic, really.

        2. As a lawyer you know that slander is a legal term which has a definition (oral or written defamation containing an untruth which will harm the reputation of the person defamed.)

          If this article is the one to which you refer, which begins with this hagiographic paragraph, 

          Paul Ryan won high marks from three national political analysts Thursday for a well-delivered, energetic and highly personal introduction to America that they said could calm some voter’s concerns about austerity plans and show the GOP’s "maturity" in attacking the nation’s fiscal problems.

          then you have a significant burden to prove that their statements that his claims were false, false, mostly false, half true, and half true were wrong in order to prove your assertion of slander.  How a political fact checking website reviewing the convention speech of a vice-presidential nominee is "going out of their way" also strains credulity.

          It would not be slander to say "If Elliot Fladen's legal arguments in court or in briefs are as poorly reasoned as his comments on Coloradopols, he must be a lousy lawyer."

        3. As I said the other day, if PolitiFact slants, it tends to slant to the right.

          PolitiFact bought Ryan's voucher excuses hook, line, and sinker. Ryan and Republicans do in fact want to end Medicare, and replace it with an increasingly inadequte private insurance voucher system they want to call 'Medicare'. Because both are called 'Medicare', PolitiFact claims Republicans don't want to end Medicare.

          This, of course, is Bullshit. The Republican Party has been looking to cripple and end Medicare since it was passed – they just haven't figured out how to do it without pissing off all of the older folk who still vote for them. So they make shit up to hide what they'd like to do.

              1. Compare: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2012/aug/30/gop-convention-fact-checking-ryan-speech/ (noting Politifact Wisconsin rated portion of speech as false on basis that Jainesville plant closed prior to Obama taking office) with 
                http://www.jsonline.com/business/130171578.html (stating: "Janesville plant stopped production of SUVs in 2008 and was idled in 2009 after it completed production of medium-duty trucks.")
                 

                1. Situation developed and decisions made prior to Obama's watch.  You really are grasping at straws here. And you''ve still never responded to my comment in anything approaching a direct way. This is just more discussion you're trying to start about something else in lieu of a direct response. Every time you hit the keyboard you really do just help prove my point. Thanks?

                  1. BlueCat – whether you think Obama should have been blamed or not wasn't the issue.  The issue was whether Ryan's claim was "false".  Objectively it was not, yet PolitiFact still rushed to slander him on that point. That rush is at least some evidence contrary to the contention that Politifact leans "conservative".

                    2. One wonders if you read the articles you link to.

                      The PolitiFact article you link to does not contain the substance of their critique of the GM plant story, but a previously written click-through link (since the convention wasn't the first time Ryan was peddling this nonsense) which reads:

                      The plant was effectively shut down on Dec. 23, 2008, when GM ceased production of SUVs there and laid off 1,200 workers. (Several dozen workers stayed on another four months to finish an order of small- to medium-duty trucks for Isuzu Motors.)

                      So, the plant closed while Bush was still in office, about a month before Obama was inaugurated.

                      While the supposed refutation you linked to reads:

                      The Janesville plant stopped production of SUVs in 2008 and was idled in 2009 after it completed production of medium-duty trucks.

                      That the difference between these two statements is substantial enough to be described as "substantially screwing up", let alone rises to the level of slander is not established.

                      You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

                      What's more laughable is the supposed broken promise Ryan was criticizing then-candidate Obama for.  Here's what he said:
                       

                      And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years.  The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive.  I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your President. 

                      My energy plan will invest $150 billion over ten years to establish a green energy sector that will create up to 5 million new jobs over the next two decades – jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced.  We’ll also provide funding to help manufacturers convert to green technology and help workers learn the skills they need for these jobs. 

                      Obama expressed a conditional belief, not a promise.  For Ryan to criticize Obama for not implementing enough government intervention in the economy, when his political philosophy (as an Ayn Rand acolyte, GMTA) is for no government intervention is just pathetic. 

                      Like your arguments. 

                    3. Umm…I'm not the one who said a word about how politifact leans. Here's the comment to which you intially replied with a non-reply:

                      You mean by telling them Republicans' actual plans for entitlement reform? See that's the difference, Elliot.  Unlike Rs, we don't have to make up stuff to attack.  You know…like imaginary Kenyan, Marxist, secret Muslim Presidents who hate white people such as their own moms and want to destroy capitalism and take away everyone's guns.  We can debate real R policy and proposals and if those real policies scare people, well, that's because they're pretty scary.

                      While you have said a lot of stuff since then, you've never "replied" to those specific comments.

                      See, here's how it works. If you want to reply to a post, that's when you should hit "reply" and your reply should be a direct response to points raised in the post.  If you want to talk about something else instead of addressing those specific points then the proper option would be to simply "post comment".

                2. The article states: "Actually, the plant closed before [Obama] even took office."  Except it didn't…inspite of the "false" meter Politifact had again.  
                   

                  1. Hi again, Eliot.  See your still not responding to anything I said in my comment.  Probably a good idea. All your beating a dead horse instead of addressing the issue of your non-reply replies to me pretty much proves… you've got nothing.  That is except a dead horse that's getting older and stinkier by the minute.

                    If you're reading this Cowgirl, please be aware that beating a dead horse is just an expression. You may be too young to be familiar with it. Don't want to set you off .  I know how sensitive you are about your dear horsies.wink

                  2. If you're hanging your accusations of slander and "utterly screwing up" on one sentence, preceded by an explanation of the technicality modifying it, as demonstration of a liberal tilt, that's some pretty weak sauce.  Would "mostly false" have dampened your ire?

                    Anyone reading the PolitiFact justification for calling Ryan's claims false can see that when the plant closed is not the totality of the justification of this asessment.  He claimed Obama promised to keep the plant open.  He claimed Obama's policies failed to do so, when the decision to shutter the plant was made long before he took office.  That 98% of the work force was let go, with a skeleton crew left behind for a short while to finish previous work orders, doesn't mean that Obama failed to keep a supposed promise to keep the plant open.  On that claim, what Ryan said was false.

                    But, conceding that the plant was still open as a dead man walking on 1/20/09, please justify that the Politfact articles "utterly screwed up" their account of the story, and slandered Ryan.

                    Here's a tip: You need to prove that what Ryan said was true.

                    GLWT.

                     

                    1. First off, I'm replying to DaftPunk's post because this admonishment of young Elliot is about what DP just did.

                      But it's to you, Elliott.

                      Have you ever gotten your fingers slammed in a car door? How about missing the nail with a full blown swing, catching your thumb and index finger with the hammer?

                      Sledge hammer misses the stake and chips your ankle?

                      Yeah…ouch!

                      That just happened. To you. Daft Punk just did that. About an hour ago the truck that hit you was Bluecat.

                      I TOLD YOU, I warned you, ya just didn't listen. These people are serious political students. When you come at them, if you're blindly trusting fox, limbaugh, pinko mailers, nra attack points, redleg pol's, and use them BEFORE VETTING THEM, these people sre going to embarrass you. They'll eat you alive, and laugh at you even as they proceed.

                      This aint redville, pal, and these people are very knowledgeable, unapolagetic, bloggers. They figure as an adult you can accept it. If you're not, like PUtad, you have no business here.

                      Get busy, get informed.

                       

                  3. The announcement that the plant would close was made well in advance. I never saw any evidence that Ryan used his great power to try to influence that decision as the congressional rep. I guarantee that if an emplyer in my little mountain town announced warly that they were closing ALL of our local electeds would be all over it. Don't know what Tipton would do, if anything, or Lamborn before him

    3. What the fuck are you talking about Elliot?

      Republicans want deep entitlement cuts at every level so that they can protect the wealth of the wealthy.

      Look in the mirror when you talking about wanting to scare people.

  6. Remember when co nsrvatives thought it was fiscally responsible to have fee for service?  That requiring all of us to subsidize the social requirements of a right or privelege is socialistic???

    1. A little more articulate than "so's  your old man" but not by enough to matter. Even   if you're doing this for free, you're overpaid.  They ought to pay you to stop drawing attention to the stunning stupidity of the stunningly stupid and fact free party.

  7. BlueCat, my original point was simple:

    "I look forward to you having the same dedication to unemotional and honest debate the next time the Dems decide to scare seniors on entitlement reform. "

    This went to a simple point that – the Dems like to demonize the GOP on entitlements.  

    You responded with a tangent: "
     

    "You mean by telling them Republicans' actual plans for entitlement reform?"

    I then pointed out that the Dems like to do more then talk about the GOP's purported actual plans:

    "When even liberal PolitiFact (which went out of its way to slander Ryan's speech at the GOP convention) calls out the Dems on their scare tactics, I think you got a problem"

    Now you may be upset that I'm not taking your bait to get into a lengthy mudslinging fest about

    "imaginary Kenyan, Marxist, secret Muslim Presidents who hate white people such as their own moms and want to destroy capitalism and take away everyone's guns"  

    Unfortunately for your desire to have a never ending pissing contest that doesn't go to my original comment and is not a discussion I signed up for.  You can go for a debate as to who wears more tinfoil dems or gop with different posters. 

     

    1. You did it again!

      When Bluecat reminded you of redleg scare tactics, re: entitlement reforms, rather than debate THAT, you changed the subject to ryan's very sketchy remarks about the Janesville plant at the convention.

      And the whining about getting popped, to boot. You sound like laughing boy.

      From entitlement reform to plant closings?

      Am I missing something?

      Come on….And if you want to get into entitlement reform, please, oh please, get specific on pinko proposed entitlement legislation. Now THAT scares seniors, and it shoud.

      Quit jerking people around and get to it.

      Now!

    2. Sorry Elliot. You pointed out no such thing . That would have entailed explaining why  Iwas wrong to refuse to accept that referring to facts consitute scare tactics.  And your example about Politifact supposed slander doesn't hold water for  all the reasons outlined here so well by others, especially by Daft.  

      Pissing contest officially over.  I have no desire for further debate with someone whose education should have taught him  the rudiments of debate (aren't you a lawyer or something?) but apparently didn't.  Your response is a mishmash of    re-direction and the old "Johnny did it too, mom" argument that, as a mom, has never impressed me.

      1. You can't debate a troll.

        They spout off a peripherally related half truth, you respond in well-reasoned paragraphs that you invested precious time and brain cells to, and they respond with another peripherally related half-truth.

        That's whay the Fladen is a troll.

      2. p.s. Elliot's education didn't teach him much.

        Voyageur schooled him on only the most important case in the history of constitutional law, Marbury v. Madison, and the best response he had was something along the lines of "I remember my very famous law school professor at my very famous law school saying something about it, but I haven't formed an opinion."  Pathetic.

        No doubt the kid has some skills at study and memorization, as he couldn't have gotten in to the schools he did without them.  But for synthesizing thoughts from various sources of information, there's no there there.

        Were his arguments better, we wouldn't need to know he'd gone to Stanford or Northwestern. His basic insecurities, because he knows he can't convince us with is arguments, require he tell us just how impressive he really is.

        I have no idea of your education, and absent my fondness for posting marching band videos of my alma mater, no-one here would know mine.  Our argumeents rise and fall of their own merits.  Yours are well reasoned and well-written.

         

        1. Thanks. Unfortunately with this new system they aren't edited very well. I keep missing little errors in spelling, spacing, etc. no matter how a hard I try. How did I ever get through writing reports and essays in school back in  prehistoric times without spell check! 

          My education is nothing fancy but I got a  good grounding in essay writing and logic early on.  My public High School was rated right up their with private prep schools. Not the richest neighborhood but very Jewish. Our parents were almost all first American born generation and they were very big on education.  The skills I was taught at that High School have been more valuable to me than anything I learned in college, just a regular state U.

          Your arguments are very well reasoned and backed up with facts, too. And you really don't suffer fools gladly.  I love that. And a little…ummm.. say grumpiness?  I like that, too.

          Now I'll hit post and hope I haven't left in too many screw ups.

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

78 readers online now

Newsletter

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