U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(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) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

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
October 07, 2010 03:55 PM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • 217 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Censure acquits the raven, but pursues the dove.”

–Juvenal

Tweet
Share

Comments

217 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread”

  1. This was shot in DC before Markey, Salazar and Perlmutter returned without having passed a budget or determined what the tax rates will be next year.  It seems to be a brainstorming session about how to explain that to their constituents.

    1. and I’m TRULY SURPRISED that you posted it!

      Wow – a Right-wing think tank that doesn’t like taxes?!? Where ever did you find this remarkable piece of video????

        1. H-man, how much credibility would I have with you if I posted a Michael Moore video to make a point? What you did was the conservative equivalent.

          Sorry for calling you Libertad. Posting time-wasting videos is his MO.

        2. You post a snarky YouTube video, spawned in the Right-Wing-O-Verse, and anyone who points out the obvious partisan stupidness of it lacks credibility with thinking Americans?

          “Thinking” does not enter into this thread, Shill-man….it’s a dumbass video from a bunch of dumbass conservatives. There’s no underlying moral or intellectual foundation.

            1. And before you get your Ken Buck underoos in a bind, when LB and the other Conservatives on this website post similar stuff like this, it’s never from the obvious NeoCon think tanks.

              It tends to be legit comedy, like the SNL “Loan Bailout” skit (that fonted George Soros as the owner of the Democratic Party) or his recent use of PJ O’Rourke quotes.  

    3. As I have said 60, 61, 101 aren’t good as a package, but there are 10 years worth of good incremental tax policy within them. We can only say thanks Democrats for driving some in our community to the edge and now watch as Colorado businesses are forced to spend millions to defeat them, millions that could have gone to investment and job creation.

      The democrats have been at it for years too.

      Democrats jam property-tax hike down citizens throats, reject popular vote

      Posted Tue, 01 May 2007

      snip…

      The tax hike — which was pushed by Gov. Bill Ritter and will cost the public $1.7 billion over the next 10 years — has been the focus of intense debate for weeks and  has dominated hallway discussions at the Capitol.

      snip

      Appealing to Democrats this morning to reconsider, Senate GOP chief Andy McElhany, of Colorado Springs, asked why the General Assembly was demanding more from taxpayers when they agreed just over a year ago to open their wallets via Referendum C. McElhany said that measure already is raking in over $1 billion a year above earlier projections.

      “Even that does not seem to be enough for the General Assembly,” he said.

      The GOP’s Sen. Scott Renfroe, of Eaton, echoed the point later in the floor debate when he observed, “We don’t have a funding problem, we have a spending problem.”

      Assisatant Republican leader Nancy Spence, of Centennial, the ranking GOP member of the Senate Education Committee, denounced majority Democrats for fast-tracking the tax hike and limiting input from the taxpaying public.

      “We haven’t had a chance to debate the bill, we can’t amend the bill,” Spence said. “I am deeply troubled by the process this bill is going through.”

      snip

      “I don’t know why you would be afraid of sending it back to voters,” she said.

      snip

      “Tax hikes should be a last resort,” Penry said.

      Republican Sen. Steve Johnson, of Fort Collins, the Senate GOP’s representative on the powerful Joint Budget Committee, said the Democrat bill raised constitutional and other legal questions that remained unresolved, and he tried unsuccessfully to delay a vote on the measure until the questions were answered.

      Johnson said the tax hike is inviting an almost-certain lawsuit on constitutional grounds, and he admonished Windels for doing an end-run on public input.

      “The ends don’t justify the means,” Johnson told her.

      The tax hike was not the only sore point for Republicans in the School Finance Act. The GOP’s Sen. Mike Kopp of Littleton pointed out the bill also includes a signifcant cut in construction funding for charter schools, reflecting key Democrats’ opposition to the popular and growing charter-school movement.  

      http://www.coloradosenatenews….

          1. tend to be about five minutes shorter than Rachel Maddow clips.

            Much, much less thinking, or even attention, required for the viewers of the Heritage Foundation clips — that why they are preferred among the Buckaroo Underoo set.

          2. If you find a clip by Moore you think is funny post it.  I might find it funny.  I might not.  

            I think as a rule people and their sense of humor are a little frayed running around less than 4 weeks out and a little laugh might help.

            1. I thought you were making a broader point, not trying to be funny. I didn’t watch the video, and saw Dan’s remark about this being from the Heritage Foundation, a group known for working on policy, not humor, so despite the expressions on the faces of the people in the still shot, I assumed it was a more serious piece. So for that, I apologize.

              Having been here a few years, yeah, humor does get a bit strained as elections approach.

        3. Won’t go on a national show, then complain about not going on a national show…

          Like Buck

          O’Donnell,

          Brown,

          Buchannan,

          Bachman

          ALL tea bag republicans and ALL

          very much Pathetic…

          Altering the message,

          Blaming the messenger

          then Hiding from “perceived” Bias.

          if ANY of them were really worthy of High office… they would go plead their case on ANY national show.

            1. By Rachel in the video. NOT ONE of them have gone on her show.

              “Friendly” national shows like Fox news Hannity etc…

              but NOT MSNBC.

              What are they all afraid of??? Rachel’s PHD?

              Keiths Purple tie?

              or the fact they will expose themselves as the intellectual frauds they are.

                1. I’m not a regular (or even occasional) viewer – all I ever see are internet clips – but I’ve never heard her accused of that.

                  Have you seen Maddow ambush a conservative guest?

                    1. Been studying at the BJWilson/CSU school of logic?

                      It wouldn’t take more that 20 seconds at the MSNBC website to see what a ridiculous statement that is.

                      But then, why would anyone want to know that the world is different from what they want to believe it is?

                    4. Couldn’t find any conservative candidates on that list, but she may very well have had some further back. I’m not saying she’s never had conservative elected officials, I’m just saying that declining her show does not mean a candidate is ducking the national media.

                    6. Ted Olsen I assumed was because of his legal fight for gay rights so I figured that was a friendly one. But yes, Chaffitz should have jumped out for me.

                      thanks – dave

                    7. I for one do wish Hickenlooper would go on Caplis and silverman and/or Peter Boyles.

                      I think it would be fun to hear Hickenlooper debunk their propaganda.

                    9. She did not ambush him.  She did ask him whether he supported the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s.  He said he had problems with the equal access to public accommodations. This was the federal law which did away with Jim Crow laws.  He went back to the old argument of states’ rights and private property.

                      Later, he claimed that the liberal media had framed him.

                      Since then, few if any conservatives have come on her show.

                  2. and she’s usually very fair with them, giving them time to make their points without undue interruption.  The only exception I rememember was the guy from FAIR, forget his name, who she hammered with quotes from Tanton, a founder of the organization and apparently a pretty vile character.  I thought she should have given him more time for his views, not Tanton’s who, while still on the FAIR board, is far from the boss of the group.

                      That exception aside, I find Maddow pretty fair with the loyal opposition.  O’Donnell, however, is a world class imbecile and should stay away from any forum attended by people with IQs in the high double digits.

                1. I watched F.T.N. too. and BUCK was asked softball questions and gave lame answers.

                  then again does the fear of ambush excuse Hickenlooper from not going on Boyles, Caplis and Silverman?

                  As if Buck, Maes and Tancredo are excused from appearing on potentially difficult media shows. Surely Hickenlooper and Bennet get the same Consideration.

                  Agreed?

                  I Would like to see them ALL (R,D and ACP) go on potentially difficult interviews. I Love America THAT much to accurately Question ANY candidate.!

        4. What’s amazin is that the Dems are that worried O’Donnell will win. I thought she was down 70-30 in the polls? Why the Democrat freakout?

          Does anyone watch this minor cable TV freak session? Her voice is so annoying and her approach is so goofy.

          She’s cast as smart, but her approach in intellectually bankrupt when compared to a Sirota type.

          1. you would then see just how craven, stupid, ignorant and narrow minded your post is.

            Sirota is Boring in comparison.

            (Buler? Farris Buler? Buler?, Buler? is Buler sick today? Buler?)

            1. In this vid clip she’s portraying some investigative reporter type role … falsely playing the gotchya reporter with her usual radical and dishonest flavor.

              Again I ask, why are the Dems even worried about O’Donnell? Has the polling changed?

              1. is a “Gotcha question.”

                Asking for an interview or a simple statement to report BOTH sides of an issue or Candidates. is somehow “gotcha Journalism”.

                just admit it Libby, tea bag republicans are afraid of real reporting from real Journalists. as they might be asked real questions.   they haven’t the guts to answer.

                That was a bit harsh. As I too Would like to hear Hickenlooper mop the floor with Caplis and Silverman.

                1. Last week the WSJ announced the contents of a McDonald’s corporate letter. Where the fast food company was discussing “Having to drop our current mini-med offering would represent a huge disruption to our 29,500 participants,” said McDonald’s memo, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. “It would deny our people this current benefit that positively impacts their lives and protects their health-and would leave many without an affordable, comparably designed alternative until 2014.”

                  Apparently Micky D’s wasn’t the only Obamacare massacre announced over the past few days. 3M the manufacturer of sticky pads and scotch tape confirmed it would eventually stop offering its health-insurance plan to retirees, citing the federal health overhaul as a factor.

                  The changes won’t start to phase in until 2013. But they show how companies are beginning to respond to the new law, which should make it easier for people in their 50s and early-60s to find affordable policies on their own. While thousands of employers are tapping new funds from the law to keep retiree plans, 3M illustrates that others may not opt to retain such plans over the next few years

                  The St. Paul, Minn., manufacturing conglomerate notified employees on Friday that it would change retiree benefits both for those who are too young to qualify for Medicare and for those who qualify for the Medicare program. Both groups will get an unspecified health reimbursement instead of having access to a company-sponsored health plan.

                  …A 3M spokeswoman, Jacqueline Berry, confirmed the contents of the memo.

                  “As you know, the recently enacted health care reform law has fundamentally changed the health care insurance market,” the memo said. “Health care options in the marketplace have improved, and readily available individual insurance plans in the Medicare marketplace provide benefits more tailored to retirees’ personal needs often at lower costs than what they pay for retiree medical coverage through 3M.

                  “In addition, health care reform has made it more difficult for employers like 3M to provide a plan that will remain competitive,” the memo said. The White House says retiree-only plans are largely exempt from new health insurance regulations under the law.

                  The company didn’t specify how many workers would be impacted. It currently has 23,000 U.S. retirees.

                  http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com…

                  2. propaganda outlet… so fox can quote WSJ and WSJ can quote fox…

                    no wonder you take it as gospel Libertard.

                    now addressing that particular issue… do you really think Mickey D’s “health insurance” was any good? it was limited to $2000. with a hefty deductible…

                    it would make a dent in the cost of resetting a broken arm. (about $4000) not much else.

      2. by O’Donnell’s campaign is laughable, given that she insults O’Donnell and all Tea Partiers nightly, using a homosexual slur.

        Also, as Maddow hints at herself, her show is relatively unimportant and O’Donnell being on the show would just give her undeserved attention. No wonder she can’t get any guests on the right. Whiny baby.

        “It will be fair.” Ha!  

        2.  IS THE name ORIGINALLY taken by the out of touch parasites Partiers.

          being Homosexual herself, Why would Maddow use a “homosexual” slur?  

          additionally in your world of “only missionary in the dark”. ANY thing else is Homo eh?

          Being tea bagged by a Female is not Homosexual. actually it’s very stimulating.

          Pull the stick out of your ass and try it sometime bj. broaden yourself intellectually.

          (among other things)

          1. Tea Partiers never took that name. It was taken up by the left wing media, in fact pushed by Maddow herself. I’m still trying to figure out how libs got a pass on using pornographic language.

                    3. is the one who’s obligated to prove them. It’s a well-known photograph by David Weigel of the Washington Independent, and there have never been any allegations or demonstrations that it was photoshopped.

                      So, um, that’ll be $1 million zillion please. And I want a cashier’s check. I’m sure your personal check would bounce.

                2. Hijack History, (unintentionally) name themselves after a sex act. Then proclaim they are more than puppets of the very wealthy.

                  (Movements like that usually require more than a daily allotment of fiber.) LOL

                  or bj even those who self illusion themselves into believing tea baggers are more than just a front for the very wealthy and bigoted.

                  THAT would be funny if it really weren’t so very sad.

                    1. Sorry beej, but long before you joined our happy little family, we were laughing at the unintended hilarity of this movement referring to themselves as “tea baggers.”

                      If you dispute this, then tell me, please, at what point in your life did you find out what the street definition of “tea bagging” was? Was it any time before this year?

                    2. I learned about it when I heard the left using it. It was rather disgusting to peek into the way they think.

                    4. You’ve been presented with ample evidence that tea partiers called themselves teabaggers. Voluntarily. Without any prompting from some “sick” left wing source.

                      What do you say?

            2. In other words, once again, The Beej is wrong.

              Here you go Beej, a link and everything to a Faux Nooze personality identifying you and your ilk as “teabaggers.”

              Enjoy.

              Score One for the Teabaggers

              From May 20, 2009. Sorry about all the words on that page, Beej, but there are some pictures too. I’m sure there’s video of it somewhere too, but I’ll finding that as an exercise for you.

            1. on the issue of DADT (elsewhere) the republicans were saying that they (and hetero Soldiers) would be uncomfortable showering with Homosexuals…

              so then the question was asked… “would YOU be uncomfortable showering with Rachel Maddow?”

              MY answer; HELL NO! In fact I would be even more comfortable, if She would let me scrub her back!

              bjwilson vapor-locked in the high school showers, thus went with math club. LOL

        3. I watched it. She wasn’t complaining about being insulted, just reporting that she was. There’s a difference.

          But she raises an important issue – why are these politicians railing against her for being unfair but refusing to come on her show?

              1. they refuse to come on, call her Biased and unfair. (like bj does) then use her to rally up donations…

                so if she is really a nobody (like bj parrots) then why use her to beg for donations…

                the fact is FEAR of being exposed as the intentionally ignorant unworkable unqualified puppets they are.

                (bj included)

                At the very least Hickenlooper does not use Caplis, Silverman or Boyles as Donation fodder.

      1. even ones I may agree with. NONE of that junk belongs in the Constitution, and all the special interests masquerading as “citizens” need to be taught a lesson that exploiting the petition process to get their legislation passed won’t work.

              1. I think it’s time for you to see the doctor to check up on whether you have ADD.

                As much as you hate HCR… and as much as you’d like to see this law enacted… you ought to at least consider the long term consequences of putting policy into the Constitution. Do you want Colorado to become California?

              2. is stuff placed there in Health care reform By republicans,

                seriously all of the amendments you hate, are ALL republican Amendments.

                (I hate em too)

          2. except the choice NOT to insure yourself.

            I agree with Aristotle, Vote NO on

            P

            Q

            R

            60

            61

            62

            63

            101

            102



            NONE of that crap belongs in the State Constitution.

            1. pqr are modest housekeeping stuff referrred by the legislature after careful hearings and widespread public input.  They need to be in the constitution because the stuff they tweak is in the constitution.

              all the numbered stuff are whack job or special interest initiatives, like taxpayer bailouts for the bailbond industry.  No on all numbers.

              1. P is regulation of games of chance like Bingo. I can go along with that.

                Q is temporary relocation of State seat of government… yet it does not say where… Cheyenne mountain? or Central City? I could then go for it.

                R Exempting Possessory interests in Real Property. this one I am against as it exempts interests that use State/local facilities/land/equipment from paying taxes on that use. it is just another giveaway to business.

                Owning a business (as I do) does not exempt one from paying taxes. the argument for talks about a business owing $10 and the costs of collection exceed the amount brought in. Well if the business Owner uses public services to make a profit he/she should be honest enough to pay the $10. if not, banning that business from future use is far more Efective than collection. (like Sturgis SD does) As well as, what of those business (at say the state fair) that rack up huge profits. this would exempt te from paying the (Larger amounts) due in taxes too.

                our State is Strapped financially,  EVERY penny counts!  

                1. to go with DavidThi808, Sir Robin, MOTR (who may object to being labeled “liberal,” but she ain’t conservative) and others I’m forgetting right now. Isn’t there a single conservative business owner who’s a regular on this site?

                  2. Which might explain his better grasp on reality than the nutcakes here.

                    Oh yeah, H-Man does something with scab labor in India making calls.  

                    1. I don’t think I knew that. I wonder what kind? It might make his beef with unions easier for me to understand.

                2. Q doesn’t specify where the seat of government would be located because it’s an energency-only thing.  You wouldn’t want to specify the new location because you don’t know where the emergency will be.  If Doug Bruce gets the nuclear bomb and blows up Denver and Douglas counties, you don’t want to be locked into Douglas as your backup.

                  (I vote for Wray.  A lovely town, on the Republican River.  The very name of the River will make the Beej happy.

                   As to R–the tax is so small, usually no more than $120, that it often costs the local jurisdiction more to collect than it yields.  Eliminating nuisance taxes with high compliance and collection costs is something we can all agree on.   Well, everybody except JO, because if I’m for it, he’s against it and will state why in 8,000 ill-chosen words.

                  1. is that it gives examples of tax amounts of $10 or so, but instead of exempting those small amounts, it exempts much larger amounts like $6000.

                    If it’s usually not more than $120, why not exempt amounts up to $120, but still collect larger amounts?

                    1. It’s $6000 because that figure captured the range of these small amounts. Anything above – other entities, such as airports, were affected.

                      R is a commonsense measure that would actually do some good for citizens and local governments.

                      Changing it in the Constitution is also the only way to do so since there have been counrt cases that basically said – can’t change this ’cause it be Constitutional!

                    3. Our property tax is insanely complicated, but if the possessory interest has a market value of $6,000 then it is taxed under the Gallagher Amendment at something like 28 percent, or $1,248.  Then, a mill levy, say, 50 mills, is applied.  A mill is a tenth of a percent, so that’s 5 percent of 28 percent of 6,000 or $624 dollars.

                       By that same process, my home is valued at more than $400,000 for tax purposes but my property tax is about $2,000.

                       Your idea

                      If it’s usually not more than $120, why not exempt amounts up to $120, but still collect larger amounts?

                      is a very good one.  And that’s what the plan does, albeit through the backdoor of the assessment mechanism, which is necessary because of Gallagher.  Only the possessory interest of the first $6,000 is exempted.  If it’s really valuable, say, $30,000, then you would pay taxes on the $24,000 left.

                         But don’t confuse the exemption, keyed to the gross valuation for tax purposes, with the tax savings involved.

                        Sorry, I need a Pabst Blue Ribbon.  This stuff makes my head ache.

                    4. The argument made in the blue book is that the cost of collecting the tax is usually more than $10, but most tax amounts are about $10.

                      That doesn’t explain exempting up to $120 of tax (for which the amount collected is more than the cost of collecting it), but it’s a more reasonable amendment than I thought at first.

                    5. I forgot to move the digit one more space because it’s a mill levy  mill equal one-tenth of one percent.  So a hundred mills, a rather high levy, would get a $120 or so in the above example, given a $6000 market evaluation.

          3. “A-63 Will prevent Obamacare from destroying your healthcare choices”

            Um, no — and obvious no.  A state can’t repeal a federal law.  Your refusal to acknowledge this, about three times now, only makes you look stupid — and you don’t want to give people the right impression about you.

          4. Three others vote on it this fall.

            I guess if you think one state is “many,” then it explains why you think tax cuts for the rich will balance the budget.

              Mathematical illiteracy is a sad thing.

        1. Do you have something against homosexuals?

          Are you a secret homophobe?

          In the military did you beat up “suspected faggots”?

          Just were and when did you develop your hate for and bias against gays?

          1. Dan supports repealing the hypocritical don’t ask, don’t tell, policy and allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military.  Where do you stand on DADT?  

            1. Sargent Schultz here harbors bias against gays through his immature and goofy statements.

              This has nothing to do with the Clinton policy and Democrat sponsored law that put DADT into federal law.

              1. …and again, my sarcastic comment uses the juxtaposition of the submissive member engaged in oral sex as a act of reward to a dominant sex partner.

                Or is that too many big words? Should I find a YouTube clip for you?

                2. Its your statement in the sig line. Those are your words.

                  You crafted these words to attack H-man last week. In doing so, you exposed yourself as a homophobe.

                  1. You’re the one obsessed with it. Now that I think about it, you are a Repub Conservative.

                    Does reliving the idea of Ken Buck’s manly organ in your longing mouth turn you on that much?

                    You could start hanging out in Men’s bathrooms in airports with the rest of the GOP….

  3. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    I guess he must have used the Tom Tancredo Network for a referral!

    Lou Dobbs has long railed against illegal immigration and the employers who hire undocumented workers. Dobbs generated controversy – and faced boycotts – for attacking “illegal aliens” as host of a nightly CNN show. And since leaving the network in December, Dobbs has kept talking about the issue in interviews,  in which he’s also left open the possibility of running for senator or president.

    But Dobbs might want to pause before making illegal immigration a signature campaign issue: At least five illegal immigrants have reportedly worked on his properties.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_…

    Wait – let me try and guess what his response will be….”The moment I found out I fired them!”

        1. Which is kind of off topic, because the administration hasn’t made curbing illegal immigration a plank position in their policy.

          So, in that vein, what percentage of Republican representatives and Senators do you think have illegal help?

        2. we could talk about what we know.

          Which is that many of our most prominent anti-gay Republicans are secretly gay, and that many of our most prominent anti-immigrant Republicans are secretly hiring illegal immigrants.

          How many anti-abortion Republicans are handy with a coat hanger in a back alley, do you think?

            1. Not so much true for Democrats.

              My open-mindedness allows me to conclude that based on a little thing called “historical evidence.”

              You seem to conclude something different based on “wishful thinking.” Good luck with it.

        1. Ever watch C-SPAN? Unanimous consent means no vote was held.

          It sounds like something that got through on the last day of the session without people paying attention.

    2. Hey, look, Obama found his veto pen!

      dKos story here.

         Why President Obama is Not Signing H.R. 3808

         Posted by Dan Pfeiffer on October 07, 2010 at 01:15 PM EDT

         Today, the White House announced that President Obama will not sign H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010, and will return the bill to the House of Representatives.  The Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010 was designed to remove impediments to interstate commerce.  While we share this goal, we believe it is necessary to have further deliberations about the intended and unintended impact of this bill on consumer protections, including those for mortgages, before this bill can be finalized.

         Notarizations are important for a large range of documents, including financial documents.  As the President has made clear, consumer financial protections are incredibly important, and he has made this one of his top priorities, including signing into law the strongest consumer protections in history in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  That is why we need to think through the intended and unintended consequences of this bill on consumer protections, especially in light of the recent developments with mortgage processors.

         The authors of this bill no doubt had the best intentions in mind when trying to remove impediments to interstate commerce.  We will work with them and other leaders in Congress to explore the best ways to achieve this goal going forward.

  5. Comcast

    Your consistent dedication to providing low-quality service at ever-rising prices, and aversion to upholding basic internet principles while also buying off Washington and lobbying against net neutrality has earned you a place in our hallowed pantheon. Kudos!

    1. I don’t know . . . those are awful tall boots to fill?  AIG, BP, Goldman Sachs, Haliburton, etc., etc.?

      Still, of all the companies that one must deal with on a regular basis here in Colorado, Comcast certainly sucketh worst-est (best-est? . . . most-est?).  (And that’s still saying something when you consider Qwest’s record.)

  7. In the paper that cannot be quoted Scott Gessler says his first priority will be to put business filings behind a login. Bernie’s plan is to leave it open to change by fraudsters.

    So if you own a business your self interest vote is for Gessler. If you’re a crook that uses fraud to steal your self interest vote is for Buescher.

    I’m voting for Bernie, but part of me will be quite happy if Scott wins. Why? Because I prefer competent even-handed management of the election process. But I don’t want to see companies put out of business, and jobs lost, because of fraud run through the state government.

    1. that are more secure than the business registration system.

      My latest beef with the SoS office is that bulk dumps of campaign finance data, which used to be free, now cost $500.  Each time you download.  And it takes 72 hours to get the data.

      So much for transparency. Farewell to citizen journalism.  If you’re the Denver P.O.S., you can afford it.  Citizen journalist, not so much.  We’ve already paid for that data once, it’s already spinning around on a disk drive, and in the past when I downloaded a bulk dump I did the processing myself in MySQL.  No State labor required.

      The fees that CORA allows State offices to charge are to recoup costs.  They’re not a license to steal.  Downloading bulk data uses far less bandwidth and processor time than downloading hundreds of individual reports.  It’s cheaper to provide and shouldn’t require additional fees.

  10. Not good news for another Republican running against an incumbent. The Greely Tribune endorsed Riesberg over Bob Boswell.

    You may remember this guy as the one who targetted lobbyists for fundraising.

    http://www.coloradopols.com/di…

    Our own Republican apologist, Ali Hassan, had these glowing remarks about Bob:

    Boswell is a really good guy…and he’s going to be a terrific State Rep…he ran the Western Sizzlin in Greeley for years, and the entire community knew, if one was hard on luck and without a meal, Bob would feed your family for free until a job came back in your grasp

    Ironically, the Tribune states in their endorsement – of Riesberg –

    The irony of Boswell’s campaign slogan, “Bob’s for jobs,” isn’t lost on us. His own business, Western Sizzlin restaurant in Evans, closed earlier this year, putting dozens of people out of work.

    Additionally, Boswell was the candidate on the campaign trail who, more than once, stated that the state should not be operating at a deficit.

    Methinks the Tribune got this one right…

    1. There are phone polls that have questions like, “Do you agree that Jim Riesberg is a liberal bastard?”

      I’m sure the liberals in the House will be shocked to hear it!  🙂

      Full disclaimer:  I don’t know who is conducting the poll and have no reason to suggest it’s Boswell.  So I’m not.  Just to be clear.

      1. People play dirty in politics all the time – but seriously Republicans, Sizzler Bob is the best candidate you could field up there?! They could have possibly picked up this seat, and a variety of others around the state, but this is who they choose?

        It’s like they really don’t want to, or have forgotten how, to win…

        1. He won because of a sign fiasco, sort of.  Since he’s not of the right party he actually has to do what his constituents want.  I’ve never heard anyone complain about him except people on the extreme left or right.

          But from the outside it looks like an easy, needed pick up.  Hard to find a legitimate candidate against an incumbent who does his job.  Not completely unlike Rep. Rice.

          I live in HD-2 and only notice his (Jim’s) races because he was the first legislator I ever had to work with on a bill.  So maybe I’m off, but that’s the impression that I get and have gotten since ’06.

                  1. … because Fannie and Freddie weren’t playing nearly as big a role in the economy’s collapse as the Fed and banking deregulation were. Reforming them wouldn’t have prevented the economy from going under, because they weren’t the ones giving the banks big incentives to originate loans for people who weren’t qualified to receive them.

                    1. Yes reforming them would have prevented the economy from going under, because they were EXACTLY the ones giving the banks big incentives to originate loans for people who weren’t qualified to receive them. With their backing, banks took huge risks, knowing Fannie and Freddie would back up the bad loans. In fact this was the whole POINT of the affordable housing push. You libs are getting desperate today to resort to outright lies.

                      Here’s the “retread”:

                      http://www.coloradopols.com/di…

                    2. At best it’s just MUS.

                      FNMA & FHLMC never push the kind of crazy underwriting guidelines that drive goofy lending.

                      In fact, it wasn’t even the goofy retail underwriting guides that tanked the banks.    It was the secondary market – where Fannie & Freddie did what they also have done. No changes there.

                    3. allowing banks to take far more risks than they normally would. In fact banks were PUSHED to give loans to low income people who wouldn’t be able to pay them back.

                    4. I spent the better part of this decade working in banking. I know what I’m talking about, and all you’re doing is rehashing attacks on a Dem representative who’s a thorn in your party’s side.

                      Fannie and Freddie didn’t, and do not, control interest rates. The Fed does. And the guy who ran the fed across the administrations of three presidents, Alan Greenspan, has since admitted that lowering the rates all the time was a mistake.

                      Freddie and Fannie did not tell banks to stop checking for collateral or whether their borrowers were earning enough pay to afford the mortgages they applied for. They didn’t tell banks to sell their mortgages with the full knowledge that the borrowers were going to default. They didn’t tell banks to originate zero-down ARMs and misrepresent how much they would cost the borrowers long term. And they did not tell banks to come up with schemes designed to get their borrowers in trouble so that they’d owe thousands in fees.

                      Fannie and Freddie had NOTHING to do with that.

                      NOTHING.

                      Freddie and Fannie, of course, played their role in the mess. Maybe the proposed reforms of the GOP majority House and Senate might have helped head off some of the worst effects of the subprime crisis (and there’s no guarantee that they would have), but the GOP leaders obviously didn’t consider it a pressing issue. It’s just as fair to blame them for it’s failure, don’t you agree? After all, you keep pointing out how the Dems have a majority in the Senate and how that means they can get whatever they want. Surely the GOP controlled House could have gotten around one Democrat from Massachusetts.

                      By the way, did you know that the reform efforts you keep talking about had plenty of Republican opponents, too? Did you know that Barney Frank wasn’t committee chair back in 2003, so his power to block any “reforms” was limited when the GOP ran the House? Did you know Roy Blunt was one of the top recipients of campaign funds from Freddie and Fannie’s PACs?

                    1. Barney Frank was in the minority, in the House. Yet, somehow, he managed to stifle the Republican majority. How’d he do dat?

      2. That “stupid” investor group, you know, the people who actually put their money where their mouth is when it comes to the state of the economy, were pulling money out of the stock market up until Obama was elected. Then, the stock market began to go up:

        http://www.marketwatch.com/inv…

        (click on the 3-year tab)

        Please explain the RISE of the stock market after the Obama election.

          1. That’s great!  I mean for all old people.

            I would’ve said something nice, but you’re giving me nightmares in another thread.  So instead… I think it’s nice that your lovely daughter will never have to make the shopping-cart-v.-nut-house-for-dad-because-he-sure-as-hell-can’t-live-with-me decision.  Good for her!

        2. Every day we’d talk about how the market was doing, and what this increase or decrease meant. That was true for a few months in March 2009, when DJIA was dropping a bit. It was bad news for Obama!

          Now the market has recovered. Why don’t we hear about it anymore?  

              1. WS anticipates a a GOP landslide. A 1,000 rise started after 7/4 and barely stopped for the labor day pause.

                Of course Obama could kill the DOW by early December if he signals more spending and a failure to maintain reasonable tax policy.

                  1. Your policies are killing managers decisions and they hold the key to investing capital. It quite different from the stock market.

                    Are you really that f’ing ignorant?

  11. he’s done so many flip-flops and backflips on the issue he’s a shoo-in to be a CIrque Du Solei performer!

    From The Daily Prophet:

    GOP Senate candidate Buck backs off stance on consumption tax

    Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck has edged away from his earlier endorsement of the consumption tax – high fees tacked onto common goods such as groceries – saying now he would push a simplified tax code as U.S. senator. He said he doesn’t believe a consumption tax is smart.

    His most recent comments are a departure from his earlier stance during the primary fight against former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, when he dubbed the consumption tax a good idea. He usually acknowledged, though, that he didn’t think the idea would be passed by Congress.

  12. Even Newsweak is forced to admit the facts – albeit with their slanted ‘journalistic’ style.

    Reasons for Democrats to Despair

    1. Colorado Senate: Sen. Michael Bennet was able to survive a brutal primary challenge from Andrew Romanoff, but he’s looking less likely to win the general election. Republican Ken Buck looked like he might be vulnerable-he was caught on tape making fun of the fringier elements of the Tea Party and made some bizarre comments during his own primary. But Buck has a sizeable lead over Bennet, and his support has been growing.

    2. Pennsylvania Senate: In another race that featured a brusing primary, Pat Toomey has a stable and growing lead over Democrat Joe Sestak, who defeated incumbent Democrat-come-lately Arlen Specter in the primary. Sestak hasn’t gained much traction, and he’s expended significant effort defending attacks against his record on Israel.

    3. Wisconsin Senate: Even a longtime liberal lion like Russ Feingold is unsafe this year. Challenger Ron Johnson first edged Feingold in polls, and has since broken things open, leading by double digits in several estimations. Feingold has launched a new ad campaign touting his support for health-care reform (an unorthodox strategy, but one that might play to his reputation). And the liberal PAC MoveOn has made rescuing him a priority. But it’s a daunting deficit.

    http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/…

      1. Why won’t Bennet defend his record of Obamacare, Tax Hikes, Regulatory Expansion, Job Killing, Bailouts, Private Capital Diversion, Crippling Bank Rules, etc….

         

        1. As promised yesterday, Valve has launched the Mac version of Left 4 Dead 2, its zombie-themed first-person shooter. To promote the game though the company is now also offering a special discount, pricing the title at $6.79 instead of a standard $20. A free expansion, The Sacrifice, has been made available simultaneously.

          Valve is additionally selling the original Left 4 Dead for $6.79, and a bundle of both games for $10.19. These options are featured only in the Windows section of the Steam store however, and the Mac version of L4D1 will only be ready later this month. Buying Windows versions of Steam games entitles people to free Mac downloads, if a Mac version of a game exists.

          Read more: http://www.macnn.com/articles/…

  15. Shopping cart software is software used in e-commerce to assist people making purchases online, analogous to the American English term ‘shopping cart’. In British English it is generally known as a shopping basket, almost exclusively shortened on websites to ‘basket’.

    The software allows online shopping customers to accumulate a list of items for purchase, described metaphorically as “placing items in the shopping cart”. Upon checkout, the software typically calculates a total for the order, including shipping and handling (i.e. postage and packing) charges and the associated taxes, as applicable.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…

  16. …I guess he didn’t check the report very well before he went off. Perhaps he had too much Brandy and caviar in the Presidential Suite the night before?

    RNC circulates study that shows Dem tax plan is better for poor than GOP one

    This morning the Republican National Committee blasted out a story from The Hill about a new nonpartisan study finding that the poor will be hit hardest if all the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. An RNC spokesman, taking a shot at the Dems’ failure to extend the tax cuts, rhetorically asked: “What excuse will the Democrats use now?”

    Here’s the funny thing, though. While that study does indeed find that letting all the tax cuts expire does disproportionately hurt the poor, it also finds that the plan Dems have actually proposed on the Bush tax cuts is better for the poor than the Republican one.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.c…

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

143 readers online now

Newsletter

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