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%
February 12, 2010 10:56 PM UTC
55 Comments
“wiggling around in excrement”!
So, the lesson here is that if you are able to portray private conduct in a way that will make a child say “ew, gross,” you have laid the foundation for legal prohibition or discrimination.
That’s the kind of sharp legal and moral reasoning we need in our state legislatures….
there is no “wiggling around” to be had regardless of which orifice you are speaking of. Its’ more of a repetitive thrusting motion.
If “someone” is going to go to such lengths like that to describe sex (any type of sex) in such graphic detail, it should be “someone” who can at least recall what sex was like, post Nixon administration.
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com…
As for the rest, I heard once that straight people can also have anal sex, even when they’re married. As Steve says, the fact that someone thinks it’s gross doesn’t make it abnormal.
I think Nancy Elliot is kind of gross, but I don’t object to her husband having sex with her.
I just sort of assumed that the whole “they’re teaching fifth graders how to have anal sex” thing was yanked out of her…, well, we don’t need to go there.
if Nancy Elliot’s sex practices were taught to fifth graders.
Shame on her. Why does she think that whatever anyone else does sexually in their own homes affects her in any way?
are people that ain’t getting any.
I did sense that she got a little tingle talking about ‘penises wriggling around in excrement’…
take a cold shower and calm down.
that any ignorant bigot can get elected.
“Contempt for happiness is usually contempt for other people’s happiness and is an elegant disguise for hatred of the human race.” -Bertrand Russell
Well, except in Georgia, where you can receive the death penalty for it.
is reaffirming exactly what homosexual sex is… obliviously thinking the rest of us adults forgot…
Never mind just how Bigoted she really is.
Dear Penthouse Letters,
I never thought it would happen to me, but boy was I wrong. I’d been hired by a guy to tutor his son in math, and I didn’t even know he was married. But one day I went over to the house, and to my surprise a woman answered the door. “My is still at soccer practice,” she said in a voice so deep it could have been a man’s. “But come in. I’ve really been wanting to meet you,” and as she took my hand, her robe slipped open to reveal ghostly pale and slightly wrinkled breasts that hung flat down her stomach. “I’m Nancy.”
She offered me a drink, and there must have been something in it, because the next thing I knew, I was naked and tied to a bed. Nancy was standing over me, wearing a negligee that almost but didn’t quite cover her round sagging belly. Her thighs shook as she climbed on top of me, like cottage cheese dripping off…
Oh God, that’s enough. All right, it should be illegal for anyone to ever have sex with Nancy Elliot.
n/t
at least now we know how you’ve really been making all your money.
I just threw up a little in my mouth.
But I’m not prepared to amend the constitution to invalidate her marriage to the blind man that she is obviously married to….
…same-sex marriage issue. What kind of idiot who wants any sort of future in politics gets up in committee…on tape no less…and speaks candidly about anal sex? Just you saying those words on video is more ammunition than your opponent could ever want or need.
What an imbecile.
I consider her stupidity less offensive than her bigotry. If she had spoken candidly in advocacy of an enlightened position in service to personal liberty and human well-being, I would applaud her courage. Speaking candidly in service to a small-minded attempt to deny some the rights that others enjoy is indefensible not due to its candor, or its political stupidity, but rather to the fact that it is a small-minded attempt to deny some the rights that others enjoy.
The candor and stupidity are incidental, and entertaining.
…the part about an “attempt to deny some the rights that others enjoy.” Truth is, NO man can marry another man, and NO woman can marry another woman. Doesn’t matter who you are, straight or gay. The law says so.
Steve is right. Marriage between same sex coupleas is legal in NH, “the law says so”.
I’m defining the right as the right to marry the spouse of your choice. You’re defining the right as the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
You could just as easily define the right as the right to marry someone of the same race, and claim that anti-miscegenation laws weren’t the denial to some of a right enjoyed by others. The similarity in logic is so striking as to almost be indistinguishable (and, indeed, if I recall correctly, anti-miscegenation laws that remained on the books have been mobilized as anti-gay-marriage laws in more recent times).
Segregation doesn’t deny anyone any rights either, by your logic, because everyone has the right to use the bathroom, water fountain, and facility designated for them.
In fact, we can simply deny the members of any particular party, race, religion, or ethnicity any right we want to by simply defining the right narrowly enough. Everyone has the right to practice the religion of their choice, as long as it’s, say, Lutheranism. Everyone has the right to free speech, as long as they speak English, and select what they say from a pre-approved list. Everyone has the right to…whatever…as long as it’s within the confines of how we’ve defined the right, defining it out of existence for those who do not fall within those confines.
Once again, you can replace your last three lines with: “Truth is, NO white man can marry a black woman, and NO black man can marry a white woman. Doesn’t matter who you are, white or black. The law says so.”
The law is sometimes wrong (as it still is in most of the 50 states, and in federal law). That’s when it’s time to change it.
is good in the sense that it makes the anti-gays look bad, but I think the stupidity goes beyond just talking about anal sex. She leveled a very serious accusation without any shred of evidence, that fifth-graders were being taught about gay sex. In principle that’s worthy of censure.
My guess is she’s representing a safe Republican district, like Musgrave thought she was. But I can’t tell based on what I’ve seen.
I’d have expected you to come down against her comments on substance, not just on form. What do you think about gay marriage? Your technical point is wrong as WST pointed out, but you don’t actually agree with Elliot on the issue, do you?
I don’t believe that gay couples should be denied any–ANY–of the rights that straight “married” couples are allowed. It shouldn’t preclude them from being placed on the other’s health insurance plan, or anything else. Marriage is and always has been a religious institution, and marriage has always meant one thing. In my personal opinion, I could give a shit what they call it. But many people do care, and 31 (including several of the most liberal) states have made that clear.
Here’s my pragmatic view. Quit haggling over the word. I believe a fight for the rights without the word is not only possible, but popular, in America. Quit fighting traditionalists and start fighting bigots. Perhaps the word will come later, but is it really worth the battle scars and the lack of progress?
And in case you were wondering, Elliot is categorically wrong. And an idiot.
except that I feel obliged to honor the wishes of the group experiencing the discrimination, and for those for whom the word “marriage” is important, I think their desire to enjoy that same sacred institition for the same reasons as others who desire it should be honored.
(There has been, and, I believe, still is, a rift in the gay community over this issue. Some, probably a minority, argue that gay coupling is different from traditional marriage, less burdened by the patriarchial historical framework of hetersexual marriage, and so gays should be proud to form their partnerships under a different rubric, rather than desire to couple within the less-desirable institutional framework of traditional marriage. I’m just repeating the argument, not necessarily endorsing it).
…the gay community. But it seems wholly logical to me. I understand how using a different word could make them feel “less,” in many different senses of the word. I’ve had this talk with many gay people before. But isn’t there something to be said for using a different word, since, well…it IS for something different? Very similar. But not the same. Like purple and violet. Like bananas and plantains (no pun intended).
As an outsider to the movement though, I just can’t help but feel like they’re shooting themselves in the foot.
are cornerstones of our national (and, ostensibly, international) ideology. Any non-predatory group that has a shared identity has a right to define themselves as they see fit. I don’t get to decide whether the challenges members of that group decide to undertake, in pursuit of material or symbolic gains, are more injurious to them than the injuries they are fighting against. I only get to say to them what I feel, and that’s this: You are free to enjoy your identity, to live your lives as you see fit, to define yourself according to your own conscience and preference, and I will stand by you every step of the way in your assertion of those basic rights. Period.
And, no, I don’t think that gay marriage is fundamentally “different” from heterosexual marriage. I disagree with the “we’re better because we’re not based on patriarchy” crowd, in the same way that I disagreed with the Black Power crowd: The goal is not to claim moral superiority through incidental differences in skin color or sexual preference, or due to the historical differences in fates that accompanied them. The goal, rather, is to transcend those past moral errors, of both self and other, to address and dilligently erase the legacy those errors have left behind, and to do so together, all reasonable people of good will in a single shared effort to get it right.
on each topic. What you write is roughly what I figured you thought, which is why the parsing surprised me.
And as the token conservative (alright, you have LB too…) on ColoradoPols I figured it was easier for you to keep track of my opinions than those you mostly agree with, apart from certain nuances.
good to have you here. I like to hear an opinion from the other side and to see a reasoned argument back and forth, even if I don’t agree.
Hippie!
I look forward to more discussions like this one.
same sex marriage – then it would be marriage and it would be ok?
in courthouses and by ships’ captains aren’t really married and should stop pretending they are?
(As MADCO is surely pointing out, plenty of religions not only recognize same-sex marriages but perform them and celebrate them. Does BR really want to be in the job of picking and choosing which religious practices the state should endorse, and which it should ignore?)
most Unitarian-Universalists and UCC churches think its awesome. GAY = God Adores You.
Wrong, wrong, mortally and stupidly fucking wrong.
Marriage is a civil institution. All those rights you mention are rights bestowed by the government, not any church or other religious institution. And they’re bestowed because the government–not a church–says you’re married.
The only right bestowed by churches is the (very suspect) privilege not to go to hell because you and your spouse wriggle your naughty bits together.*
*Not really how it works–trust me on this.
So far, so good.
I can live with that.
Well, shit…two out of three ain’t bad.
Stupidity? Bigotry? Fear of a gay planet? It doesn’t matter to me. Why anyone else would find your position “reasoned” is beyond me, since it is based on a manifestly false premise.
and disagree with much of what he’s said here. But the problem with bigotry is that it is the combination of hatred and ignorance, two forces that don’t serve humanity well. Being angry at someone for being bigoted (not saying that BR is) does not help to reduce the salience of those forces. Quite the contrary, it feeds into them and reinforces them.
There are thresholds, and the need to reinforce a agreement of civility held by most at the expense of unkindness to those who are not unboard, such as when someone spews overtly racist or homophobic hate speech. Nothing BR has said here approaches that threshold.
Some time ago you attacked another moderately conservative poster on a fine point of law that I’m convinced you were mistaken about (you insisted that a change in health care policy cannot affect the burden born by schools under the IDEA, when in fact it can, by changing the condition that some students arrive at school in).
If your threshold for intolerance tolerates no disagreement with you on any matter, than the intolerance is all yours.
BR can post all he wants. That doesn’t prevent me from challenging the manifestly false premise of his bigotry.
Bigotry sucks. So do bigots. If you want to go down the road of claiming that intolerance of bigotry is bigotry, fine. But it isn’t going to stop me from calling bigots out.
I’ll leave this all well enough alone, and hope that some of us can have another rational discussion in the near future.
about you making stuff up like “Marriage is and always has been a religious institution, and marriage has always meant one thing.”
Of course, its easier for you act like a crybaby than to answer for your stupidity.
there’s calling another poster that you happen to disagree with “mortally and stupidly fucking wrong.”
If your arguments aren’t strong enough to carry the day without being abusive, then that’s your defect, not the defect of the person you’re being abusive toward.
One problem with arrogant certainty is that, when you’re wrong, you look foolish. The other problem is that it accomplishes nothing, even when you’re right. It only serves to diminish the credibility of your position, and thus does a disservice to others who have a stake in seeing reason and good will prevail in the world.
You may enjoy personal anonymity, and feel, as a result, that you can be as vulgar and offensive as you like without sullying your own reputation. But you’re carrying the name of my political party down with you. And you’re contributing to the very problem that I, and my party, oppose: A society based too much on mutual antagonisms and too little on mutual cooperation and good will.
Democrats, in my opinion, have Reason and Good Will on our side. Why squander that advantage by acting as though you have neither to rely on, and must resort to tea-party-style red-faced rants against those you disagree with?
As a Democrat, I emphatically repudiate you and your approach to public discourse. If I were a Republican strategist trying to do the Democratic Party reputational harm, I would invent sock puppets like you, and post what you’ve posted here under screen names like the one you’ve chosen. Assuming that you’re not such an invention (and I consider it unlikely), I have to ask: Is that really what you want to contribute to the world?
Steve,
Thanks for all your eloquent comments. If I was in your district you’d have my vote and you might get my money anyway…
Your point about OTD’s lack of civility in his discourse is both well made and correct, but I have to say that his anger is understandable.
It is one thing to allow bigots (even mild unintentional ones like BR) to have their say, but it is extremely frustrating when they state as fact things which they are totally and completely wrong about (“Marriage is and always has been a religious institution, and marriage has always meant one thing.”). BR is simply wrong and OTD is correct: marriage is a civil institution.
Read this (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?em) from the NYT to see more of the conservative crap that guys like BR believe and are trying to force down the throats of the rest of us and our children.
First, on the merits of the cause of OTD’s anger and frustration: I agree completely that the discussion was about marriage in its legal and civil incarnation, which is the bulk of its historical significance. (Obviously, anthropologically, the religious and “legal/civil” aspects were historically intertwined, but marriage always served functional purposes involving property and alliances, and by the time Christianity came around, the religious veneer was thoroughly subordinate to its legal functions in Roman society. Furthermore, marriage has taken many forms, even focusing only on Western Civilization, running a far broader gamut than BR recognizes). Regardless of the historical complexities of the institution, a discussion of the legal status of gay marriage can’t reasonably be dismissed by suggesting that marriage is somehow an essentially religious institution. That’s just plain wrong. No argument from me on that.
My only point was that any debunking of BR’s errors in fact and reason could have been done both more pleasantly and more effectively by simply making the arguments without the personal insults. Even if one considers the topic too important to too many people to let issues of politeness interfere with confronting wrongheaded notions, by the same reasoning it is too important to cloud good arguments with the self-indulgence of bad manners.
I think my arguments above were more effective than OTD’s precisely because they zeroed in on errors of fact and reasoning, and avoided ad hominem attacks. I’m not saying I always succeed in that endeavor, but I do believe that it is usually the better way to go. (Having said that, I agree that there are times when being civil lends too much legitimacy to an odious notion. I just don’t think that this is one of those times).
But, aside from the issues of civil discourse and of effectiveness in making what I agree is an important point, there is also a distinction between such an angry reaction from a random poster on the one hand, and from someone who has a habit of being abusive toward anyone who disagrees with him on the other. It was the combination of all of those considerations that I was responding to.
BTW, I appreciate both your kind words toward me, and your emphasis on the error in BR’s reasoning. We wouldn’t want the latter (substantive) point to get lost in a discussion of form!
You might learn what “ad hominem” means before you use the term.
before insulting others. (Hint: It’s not exactly what it appears to be).
I called a supposed fact stupid, not the poster.
How’s that “can’t we all just live together” stuff working out for Democrats these days? Are Republicans responding favorably? NO–that’s what’s dragging down the party and preventing progressive change.
How about focussing on challenging bullshit and bigotry, instead of attacking Democrats?
1) Indirect personal insults are still personal insults.
2) The Democratic party is a means to an end, not an end in itself. If it is not a means to the advancement of reason and good will, then it is not a vehicle that serves any purpose I support. Fortunately for all of us, you do not define this party.
3) Realpolitik is not synonymous with obnoxious vitriol. You imply a fallacy when you suggest that the (alleged) failure of a particular attempt at moderation proves the functional superiority of antagonism.
4) I challenge that which I think pulls us down, and support that which I think lifts us up, by whatever name either one chooses to go by.
5) You exhibited far more bigotry on this thread than BR did, and that is precisely why I focused on challenging you.
if the poster is “stupidly fucking wrong,” then “stupidly” is an adverb describing the poster’s act of being wrong (and attaches to the person by modifying the adjective which modifies the individual), not an adjective describing the fact about which he was wrong. Is that a careful enough reading for you?
I can just imagine you in front of the Pickrick…”Why yes, Mr. Maddox, it sure is terrible what they say about you. Can I give you a hand with those axe handles?”
Could it be the individual who called another poster, posting in a perfectly civil way, “stupidly fucking wrong,” and then snottily suggested that I learn what “ad hominem” means, wrongly insisting that he had criticized the statement and not the speaker? Or could it be the individual (supposedly a lawyer, but hopefully one with plenty of malpractice insurance) who berated another poster for being mistaken about a fine point of law about which, in fact, HE himself was mistaken? Oh, wait, that’s one and the same person!
We’re so lucky to have you fighting for all that is good and just, by berating and demeaning others and lowering discourse to a shouting match of vulgarities. What o’ what would we do without you?
a very conservative town.
The last thing Merrimack was famous for was this in 1996.
they not only reproduce, but also “recruit,” by destroying public education in their image (That was a take-off on the old slur that gays can’t reproduce, so they have to recruit).
http://lablips.dailyradar.com/…
were thinking? I wish I knew.
LMAO.