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
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
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
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 05, 2010 10:39 PM UTC
73 Comments
Loading ...
(I had to look it up didn’t quite know what it meant–Thanks!)
‘apple polishing toady’
DanMaesforApplePolishingToady.com
At least I guess, because last I checked we didn’t have a border with Mexico. Oh wait…I see:
Yeah, that’ll do it–being a strong voice among 50.
http://www.coloradostatesman.c…
a tough poll, CT. An “all of the above” option would have made it easier. 🙂
`Most eager to please… comes complete with own Viagra, X, KY and he swallows without complaint!
Prophylactics are suggested but not required for use. as they are by-products of Oil companies raping our Wild areas!
for we know not what we ask in requiring you to shut off your damned well and clean up the Gulf.
You Dems don’t care how many people’s lives are destroyed because they don’t have a job as long as your precious environment doesn’t suffer any oil in one single square mile anywhere in the entire U.S. There is such a think as acceptable risk.
Keep posting, the list of possible subject matter is dwindling.
It is 1/6 the price to develop an mcf of natural gas in the shale plays than the Mountain West.
So you either support forcing companies to drill when its not economic or paying companies massive subsidies to drill.
How would Ronald Reagan CAFP ™ feel about that one…
You’ll find even they right now don’t want any more drilling. Screw the environment is very popular among many on the right, until it’s their specific environment that gets trashed.
Obviously the oil spreads much more in the ocean. Maybe if the environmentalists wouldn’t hold up so many other types of drilling we wouldn’t have to do the riskier and hard to reach deep water drilling.
There are large reserves under the Gulf and they hold lots of leases. To pretend they will not drill there even if more lands were open to them is foolish. Par for course from you though.
In fact vast tracts of land are already leased for oil and gas exploration in known production zones–the Gulf just happens to be the biggest oil reserve left in the states.
I understand this is the meme from the quitter half-term Governor, and predictably the parroting talking point burpers such as yourself–incapable of original thought–will spit it back up on cue. But tell me what oil reserve on land in the US do you think is comparable?
since I know how averse you are to facts:
http://www.scientificamerican….
Onshore the Bakken field may be the best bet–with reserves estimated at between 3-5 billion barrels.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/…
That they don’t want
?
I know, you’re not bound by facts or reality or sense or sensible reasoning or anything for that matter.
Like a 2-year old whatever pops into your head is the most ‘real’ pressing matter–and out it comes like baby puke.
And do I have to say it again? I know you are, but what am I? 😉
still where did anyone say that they want to prohibit all drilling anywhere? I don’t think anyone did–but when you cannot frame a rational argument to counter another you must resort to that old stand by fallacy–the straw man.
BJ, somewhere buried in your sweeping assertion (which raises your penchant for shallow hyperbole to even more ridiculous heights), appears to be the baseless assumption that O&G jobs are the ones we (all Dems, apparently) actively destroyed.
Now that we fully appreciate the fact that yet another of your educational gaps includes Economics, here’s a flash: creating great jobs and preserving the water, land and air for our children isn’t a mutually exclusive proposition.
It probably wouldn’t be much of a stretch to believe your ideal for Interior Secretary was none other than the infamous (“We will mine more, drill more, cut more timber”) James Watt.
You know, like the end of the world is just around the corner, so why bother saving anything for the kids?
Raising taxes on businesses hurts those businesses. Duh.
Taxes that fund infrastructure improvements help businesses. Taxes the fund emergency services like fire, police and ambulance help businesses. Taxes that help educate our children so that they can perform specialized jobs in our society help businesses.
What you hate about taxes is that you have to help pay for a civilized society instead of buying that extra fifth of Jack Daniels every month. News to the big bj, you don’t need that extra fifth of Jack Daniels anyway. It just rots your liver and ruins your brain. Well you still have a chance to salvage your liver.
This incessantly repeated gem of stupidity is so easily debunked, and yet that doesn’t stop its incessant repetition by mindless ideologues like you. Here’s a lesson in logic for you:
Your statement implies that, no matter how high or low taxes currently are, it is always better for business to lower them. The inevitable conclusion of that statement is that zero taxes are optimal. Zero taxes means zero revenue for government, which in turn means zero government. Zero government means no enforcement of property rights (no police and no military), which means that all efforts will be diverted to protecting or stealing existing property, which means the collapse of all businesses other than organized crime and a complete collapse of the productive economy.
This, of course, is only the simplest aspect of the necessity for taxes, and the easiest way to point out the absurdity of the suggestion that zero taxes is optimal. In more precise analysis, it becomes clear that optimality goes beyond funding police and military to enforce property rights (and preserve national sovereignty).
Every human being with even the slightest capacity for reason understands that the suggestion that taxes should always be reduced is simply stupid. As every economist understands, the questions always are “what is the optimal level of taxes, and how should they be distributed and designed?” And, of course, there are numerous systemic questions embedded in those.
The problem with blind ideologies is that they are prone to advocate for utterly ludicrous black-and-white positions, rather than to engage in the real policy work work of line-drawing.
The answer to the above analysis always is “yeah, but taxes are too high now.” 1) That’s another example of retroactive revision in order to cure an uncurable error in what was originally said, and 2) It is never accompanied by any actual analysis or argument which supports the assertion; it is always as arbitrary as every other popular right-wing assertion.
That from someone whose apparent sole ambition is to draw their paycheck from the government he so despises.
Come on BJ — tell the truth. The only reason you’re here with your feckless comments and stunning obtuseness is to collect witty putdowns you’ll need for all the vicious academic battles you expect to have should you achieve a permanent teaching position.
I googled “Brian Joshua Wilson CSU,” and all I got was a professor of mechanical engineering named Brian Wilson, no grad student/TA by that name. If he had ever been mentioned on any university website, or anywhere else, in conjunction with his role as grad student or TA, he would have popped up. And you have to be pretty spectacularly worthless not to be mentioned in any capacity! (Some trivial deparment award, some project you’re associated with, some paper you presented, something…).
Not going to put a direct link (per site policy not to out people involuntarily), but there is a grad student/teaching assistant by that name in a department that doesn’t necessarily reward close proximity with reality.
It’s actually a discipline I greatly respect. Oh, well, there’s another blow to any assumption that a person’s professional or academic status correlates to general intelligence…. But the disconnect between the cognitive activities involved in that discipline, and the lack of any trace of similar cognitive activities in his posts on this blog, is really striking!
He posted his real name, he mentioned he is a TA at CSU…noting his discipline seems no further ‘violation.’
So he’s studying symbolic logic, and yet is the poster who has employed the most strking lack of anything vaguely resembling logical argumentation of, I believe, any poster on this blog (even surpassing Libby, who at least occasionally proffers bad arguments). It’s just bizarre.
Personally I found symbolic logic the most difficult part of my graduate work in philosophy. I guess I am more stoopid than BJ afterall…
a new sig line. Now that I have made my mea culpas, why don’t you address my arguments?
whether I agree with his conclusions or not, I’ll show him the respect due to anyone who makes a meaningful contribution to public discourse, and submits their political opnions to the lathe of reason and critical thought. If we could only get everyone to adhere to that framework, we’d be a far wiser society as a result.
who are extremely easy to troll.
An easy way to frustrate a troll is not to reply to them. I wonder if replying to virtually every one of his posts with long sincere analysis is eventually as successful.
Really, Steve and Twitty, he’s just yanking your chain and will continue to do so until classes start up again in the fall.
My analysis is indeed sincere, but I generally try to keep it short.
I know he’s a troll, I use it as an opportunity primarily to make my case, I have given up on expecting a cogent response, presumed academic skills notwithstanding I do not think he is actually capable.
You just said it. You’re sincere. Neither of these guys are. They aren’t looking for a conversation. They are looking to stir the pot and one of them is clearly mentally unstable as sxp has pointed out more than a few times.
Reply to people that want to have a conversation because there are plenty of them here to engage. These two just aren’t worth your time, Twitty. They really aren’t.
I, on the other hand, am totally worth your time. 🙂
I like to argue. You should hear me with my own unreasonable personalities…
But, yes, you are totally worth it MoTR.
I’ll stop crossing the bridges the more worthless one is camped out under. The other actually does engage in authentic discourse sometimes, so, to the extent that he does, I won’t promise not to respond.
where your support for Maes might bear fruit.
Because, you know, the fishing and shrimping industries, and boating and tourism industries, that form such a large portion of the Gulf Coast economy are completely expendible, as long as we get to destroy ecosystems along with all of those jobs and livelihoods.
Why do people keep thinking Colorado is an ocean? It’s on LAND, for crying out loud.
“anywhere in the United States,” which includes the coastal waters of the United States. My response was to your comment, precisely. And your comment was phenomenally stupid, as always.
will freeze in the dark.
I have no reason to believe that you are an idiot, so help me out here.
What the fuck do you know about the energy industry?
This is a serious question. I really want to know.
all the clean air and clean water (since it is obvious that anyone who is slightly pro oil & gas must be completely opposed to clean air and water).
You’ll all die in a few days, but if it’s any consolation, you’ll be warm while you die under the bright lights.
Once you’re all dead, renewable energy sources will be more than adequate to supply the energy needs of the rest of us. Thanks.
/snark, but just thought this approach might help you realize (guffaw) how stupid your claims appear to those of us who are demanding that the price of fossil energy should reflect the cost of producing and consuming it.
I love the dark and cold, eating raw food.
In some circles, that’s considered a luxury.
Begging is always a bad idea: it demonstrates how desperate you are.
Sure, acknowledge that a business, and the jobs it creates, is important, but also point out that business that do not carry their wight, by hurting individual or jointly owned property rights through environmental destruction or by paying less in taxes than they demand in subsidies and services, are not good economics bargains.
The nice thing about extractive industries: industry has to extract it where they find it–we have good bargaining power if we don’t act like weaklings as Maes suggests.
I mean a little bit of common sense regulation on O&G is nothing compared to drilling on the Siberian steppes, in the volatile politics of Africa or a mile under the sea. O&G goes where the juice is.
in the Piceance O&G will be back with vigor.
Maes’ behavior is shameful pandering, despicable and unpalatable.
I don’t want my Governor begging any industry for forgiveness, especially when other resources and values–including private property and public health are at stake.
Small software companies located in Boulder. But for the rest – I agree with you. (What he should ask for forgiveness on I have no idea.)
Dems make it hard for Piceance O&G to make a profit. And what is an mcf?
Natural gas is measured in cubic feet, an mcf is a thousand cubic feet, and the reason that it costs 6X more to develop in the Piceance has nothing–I repeat nothing–to do with environmentalists. I would ask you to pony up a stat, figure, fact or other source to back your claim but I know all you can really say is…
In additional to the geology (tight sands vs. shale) and the different costs involved with exploiting the very different resources, the primary reasons that it costs 6x more; there are other reasons that gas across the Mnt. West is less economical. You might have noticed–there is a large desert on one side and many many miles between the resource and market, and tall tall things poking out of the ground on the other; pipeline capacity is limited and restricted,
know shit, do ya, bj?
That he would argue for days about energy policy, drilling in Colorado, regulations (either ‘needed’ or ‘needless’ of course he won’t say which are which), etc. then have to ask what an mcf is…
What are they teaching kids in college these days? (No, I don’t expect them to teach terms like ‘mcf’ but it would be nice if they were taught how to think and how to learn things…)
Regardless of the issue, it seems that all I ever hear from politicians on the right are the “Why” and “Want” of the issue, but I never hear the “How”. For example…
GOP Politician: I’m going to end government waste, stop illegal immigration and create jobs!
GOP Crowd: YAY!!
Me: Ok. How?
GOP Politician: Well first, I’m gonna end government waste. Then I’m gonna stop illegal immigration. And I’ll do both of these things while creating jobs!
GOP Crowd: YAY!!
Me: Aw for fuck’s sake.
from the GOP for revealing their election secrets. Make grand pronouncements without any specifics and hope the voters buy it.
to how little Dan Maes knows about politics. High five!