“The life of the dead is placed in the memory of the living.”
–Cicero
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Colorado Republicans Bearhug J.D. Vance, Warts And All
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Colorado Republicans Bearhug J.D. Vance, Warts And All
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Colorado Republicans Bearhug J.D. Vance, Warts And All
BY: spaceman2021
IN: Colorado Republicans Bearhug J.D. Vance, Warts And All
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Boebert Wants to Fix Secret Service by…Not Paying Them?
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Colorado Republicans Bearhug J.D. Vance, Warts And All
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Well, Lookie Here: Gabe-ish Evans Takes Salary from Own Congressional Campaign
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Hurd, Evans Play Amnesia Games On Anti-Abortion Votes
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Hey AC,
Since you're going to be showing up here soon, Michael Bowman came up with this yesterday:
Now I know this is only one example but if you try to pass this off as a outlier everyone will laugh harder at you for the rest of the day.
You contend that the Iran deal will cause nuclear war between Israel and Iran. Isn't this exactly what you and the Republican base want?
So what's the problem with the Iran deal again?
Behold a pale horse, and upon him rode Ted Cruz
Hummm… I see Ted Cruz substituting for Bob Beauprez with a gray horse
Ac also said that Obamacare would bankrupt the country, that Benghazi would prevent Obama from being re-elected and on and on. He is a fool with no original thoughts, just his always wrong right wing talking points.
AC and Moddy make these dire predictions because they miss the good old days of needless wars (Iraq 2003), misfeasance in exposing us to terrorist attacks (9/11), government incompetence during major disasters (Katrina 2005), massive deficits (2001-2008) and deep recessions with staggeringly high unemployment (2008).
They need Republicans to gain office so that they can see their current predictions come true as well. Just look at the examples in the GOP-controlled Congress and the GOP-led states as proof. None of them can govern themselves out of a paper bag, and dang proud of it if they say so themselves!
I was recently reminded of the hateful attacks and demonstrations in 2009 regarding the proposed Affordable Care Act, AND was reminded how difficult it must be to be a Republican these days. Oh, it's easy being angry, mean, and negative all the time, and dumbing everything down – the hard part is keeping your stories straight without a little nagging cognitive dissonance.
Here's what happened: I attended a meeting promoting the proposed ColoradoCare plan, the one created and advocated by Dr/Senator Irene Aguilar, T.R. Reid, and others, for which they're gathering signatures for the 2016 ballot. One of our local naysaying Republicans (who no doubt railed against Obamacare in 2009) stood up at the meeting to rail against the proposed ColoradoCare, saying with her many health problems she likes the insurance she has now – insurance no doubt made possible by Obamacare! Painful irony – painful to all but the hypocritical and selfish who want good health coverage for themselves, and to hell with everyone else.
Donald Trump is brilliant revenge: The GOP’s demise looks a lot like this
Dana Milbank captures perfectly the triumph of Trump and the conundrum he represents to baffled Republican pols, even one as red meat adept as Cruz used to appear to be. The more Trump dumbs it down with his limited vocabulary the better that wing of the party loves him and tunes out the likes of a highly educated, debate champion elected pol even as wacko rightie as Cruz.
Always more purely fear, hate, bigotry and xenophobia based than policy based, always primarily anti-government, all of it, which GOP elected government officials didn't think through when they were so sure they could play these people just like they played the old religious right for decades, the Tea Party has found its perfect hero .
In Trump, who has complete credibility when he rails against the government, never having held any political office and who doesn't bother them with any of that boring policy stuff, they get nothing but pure unadulterated raw red meat just the way they like it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-flounders-in-donald-trumps-shadow/2015/09/09/0f47bb24-5740-11e5-abe9-27d53f250b11_story.html
Great article by Milbank. It shows how, unfortunately, entertainment grabs and holds popular attention over appeals to intellect. Trump is in the lead because he is a professional entertainment. He has levels of game that his fellow candidates will never have. It will probably be an ugly road to victory, with lots of thinly-veiled hate and invective lining the road, but in the end, this will work out well for the Democrats.
I have to admit that I feel personally responsible for the rise of Ted Cruz. I served with him at the Undergraduate Student Government in college. I thought he was a nice guy; a bit conservative, but a nice guy. So I worked with him. In my defense, if I'd had any inkling of what he would become, I would have taken action to pour some cold water on his political aspirations.
Another good article on Cruz' ridiculous appeal to his Tea Party base:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lawbreaker-kim-davis-and-the-lawless-ted-cruz/2015/09/04/fd63c660-5333-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html
Worth noting that jack-booted militia thugs from Oath Keepers are now in Rowan County, KY, to "protect" Kim Davis in case she violates her release conditions and the judge wants to return her to jail.
Is Kentucky going to be like Nevada? Do they have enough women and children to hide behind?
The government made a huge mistake there. Yes, they should have avoided on the spot violence but arrests should have come later at a less incendiary time under more manageable circumstances.
Sigh, I love how the mini-editor rips out iframes.
I'll take one please.
Can you imagine any other Senator, VP and possible presidential candidate being this absolutely, spontaneously and nakedly honest, so emotionally exposed in a major network TV appearance? Or ever? Anywhere vaguely public? I sometimes wonder if upper echelon pols are ever that way anywhere with anyone, including their closest loved ones. This interview made me sad that there is so little possibility that this good, strong, loving, devoted man will jump in after all. Makes me wish his studied polar opposite in every way, HRC, would implode today. Like right this minute.
I think a world with Francis as Pope and Joe as President would be a much better place.
BC, I agree with you. Well said. I watched the Colbert show last night and had the same reaction.
BC, my heart agrees with you, but my head says HRC has the much better chance of keeping any of the GOP disasters-in-waiting from locking up the last branch of government to implement their outrageously wrong-headed agenda.
Maybe. I'm not convinced the GOP won't go with a usual suspect type when all is said and done. I'm not convinced that, if they do, she's a winner.
I see her campaign making exactly the same mistakes it made going against Obama. I think she and her devotees have been in their bubble of arrogant, entitled, inevitability for so long nothing penetrates.
HRC has always placed all the blame for any set back on others never accepting an iota of responsibility for Bill when he was President or for herself since. Even her latest weak as possible 'I'm sorry" doesn't acknowledge that her mixing personal and official e-mails in one account was poor judgement, just that it led to confusion and controversy and an opening for the conspiracy against her despite the fact that it was allowed and perfectly fine. If everything is your enemies fault, if there's never anything wrong with anything you are responsible for, there's nothing you need to change. Just keep telling people it's all your mean enemies fault.
With that mind set, a mind set that hasn't changed in decades I don't believe her campaign will get any smarter and I don't believe she can win unless they do and/or she is blessed with a completely unelectable opponent. I'm not confident that's what's going to happen.
That's fair, and to a certain degree, I concur. But as long as the GOP race is commanding most of the attention, it is hard to say what impact all that will have on her electability.
If she wins, then the characteristics you point out will be highly relevant. But I see all our past presidents with their various flaws, whether Democratic or Republican, and on balance we were much better off with a Democrat, flaws and all, than a Republican, flaws and all.
While Biden is by far a better person, and absolutely does have the experience to be an excellent President, he would need a huge outpouring of support (not to mention from his family and in his own heart) to pull together a winning campaign, something he has tried and failed to do twice before.
While the choice between the better of two Angels would be nice to have, I'm ready to pick the lesser of two evils (metaphorically, of course).
I think they're highly relevant to whether she can win. That's what worries me. The execrable 21st century GOP taking back the WH. And here's another from Dana Milbank who's on a roll. Particularly like the bit about putting the "moron" into "oxymoron". Hope team HRC takes his advice.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-clinton-campaign-puts-the-moron-into-oxymoron/2015/09/11/8ba14572-5895-11e5-abe9-27d53f250b11_story.html
Great advice — but I think she is who she is. I honestly don't think she'll peel back 50 years of accumulated armor at this point in her life.
Of course. I think that’s the real point. You can’t change the public perception by, in effect, announcing that your candidate will now perform, warmth, naturalness and humor at a particular time and place. Watch for it on Ellen. Everyone will be looking for phoniness and the candidate will be more self conscious and unnatural than ever.
I had the honor of being on two White House calls where the VP led a discussion on health care, backed by Nuns on the Bus, Sister Simone. His talk was frank, raw and dead-on. I'd crawl over broken glass to support his campaign if he'd jump in. Anytime our dos idiotas refer to him in an unflattering manner I have a visceral reaction. Like you, BC, I concur: this world would be a better, safer, more just place with Joe and Francis' combined influence.
It would be more open, friendlier, less distrustful place, that's for sure.
I'm looking forward to hearing the discussion between Black Lives Matter and Joe Biden, quite frankly.
Read this article yesterday on the EPA's proposed emissions regulations. Decent reporting. Lowering emissions has undeniable health benefits. It also has undeniable economic impacts. The way forward isn't about deciding which interests trump (pardon the pun; under Trump, we'd have mini Atlantic City's popping up in every oil and gas town). It's about public/private partnership to use natural gas to transition from fossil fuels to renewables. There will be pain, but let's spread the pain around and not concentrate it in only some communities.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/epa-smog-rule-battle-lines-drawn-in-poor-communities-213481
You do realize, don't you, that your moniker is a constant reminder that you aren't anything that you purport to be, and thus undermine any support you might otherwise gather to your cause?
You may want to run your copy by someone else in the office before you post again.
Here's the lie you were supposed to tell:
Here's what you literally just said:
That's not a joke. Read what you just wrote. You just said that people having healthy lives doesn't Trump™ making a buck. The boss is going to be mad.
This message brought to you and paid for by COGA …
… COGA — if we ain't drilling, we ain't drilling!!
Here's what they think of natural gas in North Dakota:
Yes, that's so called flare off. "Waste" natural gas from the ND oil fields. A perfect example of energy company conservation.
If we somehow were to "transition" to natural gas, how would the Koch brothers take it?. The energy yield from burning carbon depends on the number of carbon bonds oxidized. Natural gas is less efficient per unit of carbon than coal. True, you don't get the lead, sulfur, arsenic, cadmium etc. pollutants that you get from coal, but you do get just as much CO2 and just as much global warming.
The way to transition is to convert from fossil fuels to renewable fuels as quickly and as completely as possible. And what is possible is a lot faster than going through natural gas.
Yet another reason why MB4CO can't be taken seriously…
Suffrage, Saran Wrap and Shoe Boxes
My paternal grandmother often said, "none of us can be as dumb as all of us."
OK, ForkO, Answer this. I can make a buck by poisoning you. How much can I make before you object? I’ll even pay you a little something for the opportunity.
What a waste of a headline. Battle lines? Those are being purposely constructed by the usual suspects who have no doubt made a significant ad buy with Politico to steer them toward these outliers. The same old, tired predictions that never come to fruition, full of "…who worry", "might", "could" and every other squishy word they can find. In the case of one of your initial posts, the Democratic outliers who are being quoted by the Koch shadow group happen to be our Governor and Senator. Same song, different singers. They no doubt have made the political calculations regarding their positions, but they defy arithmetic.
The economic costs of inaction are not in the best interest of our economy, and history has proven time and time again that moving towards a cleaner environment is good for jobs and our economy. Yes, there are displacements. In the case of the leaders in St. Louis and and Pittsburgh, those issues could be easily addressed with tax incentives for retraining, establishing enterprise zones, etc. I recall that POTUS had offered a billion-dollar climate mitigation program in his last budget – an idea soundly rejected by the TeaBillies. (you might remember we had a similar proposal in the CoLeg is past year, defeated by Senate Republicans).
If Pittsburgh is betting its future on the Marcellus Shale, the city's leadership is already in the early stages of implosion.
Natural gas is a bridge to nowhere, but you already know that. If we're going to rise to meet the extraordinary challenges of our climate 75% of the carbon in the ground has to stay there. We'll manage just fine, keeping our showers hot and our beer cold with new technologies – those that convert the infinite power of the sun, wind, biomass and geothermal resources into cheap, plentiful energy supplies. And we'll create better paying and more stable jobs in the process.
PS: Koch, Inc and the Republicans couldn’t give a rats ass about poor people. They are disposable pawns on their quest for ‘more’
Michael, you're spot on- Politico and its "Morning Energy" feature is very much in the tank for the Koch Bros. Darren Goode, the author of the Politico article MB4Koch referred to, is definitely pimping for Council on Regulatory Solutions.
Here's Goode's 6/12/15 piece, in which he is so very concerned about the ozone regulations, and cites CRS.
A quote :
Here's another Politico piece, posted 1/14/14 by Alex Guillen, which also cites the CRS:
Darren Goode reported on 6/16/14 that "Kochs Launch New SuperPAC", including this slam on Koch critics:
Goode's recent piece extensively quotes Freedom Partners, a Koch entity, which is odd because generally Koch entities are reluctant to be quoted in the press. Goode apparently has unfettered access. Politico values its status as a "neutral" political news magazine, but if its reporters are tied, or at the least biased towards the Kochs, this should be disclosed.
Progressicat– you use the word 'literally'. I do not think it means what you think it means.
adverb
1.in the literal or strict sense: She failed to grasp the metaphor and interpreted the poem literally.
What does the word mean literally?
2.in a literal manner; word for word:
to translate literally.
3.actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy:
The city was literally destroyed.
4.in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually:
I literally died when she walked out on stage in that costume.
“Literally” has many meanings (see 3, 4). Sorry I English better than you.
Unless you don't think literally means exactly?
Perhaps not technically but it's spot on about your message. The same tired old message. The same mind set that puts actuaries to work deciding how much it would cost to save x number of lives and whether the pay out in suits for the deaths would be cheaper than the cost of saving those lives in the first place. If the answer is, it costs less to let those deaths happen and pay possible suits then no action will be taken to prevent those deaths. It's only when the outcry hurts the bottom line that protections are put into place, cars or other products recalled. That's why we need regulations based on our well being and future, not on the cost of death according to a company or industry’s actuaries.
Things To Do in the greater Denver area this weekend:
See me and my photography at the opening reception of my first gallery show. The Showcase Gallery above the Central City Visitors Center has just opened a show titled "Wild Life in the Mountains", featuring me and two other Gilpin County nature photographers. The opening reception is tomorrow (Saturday the 12th) from 1pm-3pm. The gallery is on the 2nd floor of the Visitors Center in Central, 103 Eureka Street.
This is part of my evil master plan to take over Gilpin County arts. Next weekend is our annual Art Studio Tour, where I will have photos at four separate stops along the tour, plus two local coffee shops.
Congratulations, Phoenix. I won't be able to make it to your show, but hope that many others will.
Here's the actual big line on the 2016 Presidential race 😉
http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/11/investing/donald-trump-odds-winning/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom
Man, it's getting hard to keep up with all the stupid coming from the GOP candidates!
Just yesterday, Mike Huckabee, in defending Kim Davis' defiance of the Supreme Court, thinks the only reason blacks in America vote and aren't slaves on the plantation is because we simply choose not to enforce the Dred Scott decision:
The scary thing is he really believes it and this moron was a Governor. He really doesn't get that when the Supreme Curt overturns something it is no longer law. It doesn't have to be repealed by any legislative body as he believes. It doesn't become the the state's or the federal government's responsibility to correct it with new legislation before the judgement goes into effect as he believes. It simply no longer stands as law once the Court declares it to be unconstitutional. Why doesn't he get this? He's old enough to have gone to school when civics was still being taught? What on earth is the matter with this guy? And why do talking heads, after gently trying to explain to him that he's wrong, give up and let him get away with presenting his totally erroneous views as a possibly valid opinion?
I think you already know the answer to that question, BC.
Guess so.