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%
May 17, 2007 08:57 PM UTC
65 Comments
he should just be let off with a warning, probation, and a GPS tracking bracelet, for speech inciting hatred.
n/t
if he doesn’t like we can toss his ass out of our country!
Metameucil? Gemfibrizol? Viagra? (God, I hope we don’t find that last substance)
Geritol, Carter’s Little Pills, Dr. Williams’ Pink Pills for Pale People and Fletcher’s Castoria. He’s not that up-to-date.
There’s also some tussin in there somewhere. Keep your stick on the ice – sorry, I couldn’t help myself Red.
but at least they find me handy!
Couldn’t help myself either. :>)
I love that show. Sorry, Gecko, has nothing to do with Colorado politics.
Apologists for Islamalfacists have only themselves to blame for this.
Too many Muslims, not all, certainly, in this country are fifth columists, and that makes them all problematlc, in my opinion. This is not a racist nor a bigoted opinion, just one based on years of observation. Feel free to close your eyes to the obvious.
And feel free to keep making statements that shut down debate, AS.
You may want to argue a defense of racism, suggesting that when there are enough members of “race” (or the appearance of such) who offend our collective sensibilities, then it is permissible to target the entire race. That is, after all, what you are suggesting.
Of course, the reality is that the vast majority of muslims are neither terrorists nor fascists. But let’s not let the facts interfere with our “rational” defense of racism.
Because that’s what he’s espousing. It’s unconstitutional on several levels; do you agree with the idea that we should throw the constitution out the window to target citizens of one religion? If so, which one(s)?
more worthy of public outrage than those quoted above. I’m a jew -when it’s convenient to be a jew, at least- and this guy’s comments bring back some awful racial memories. If it weren’t for the fact that I loathe public orgies of righteous indignation almost as much as I loathe racism, I’d be delighted to see this bozo go the way of Imus.
When injustice happens to individuals, you belittle them for protesting — or openly displaying umbrage over it. Indeed, you feign perfect indifference. In remarkable contrast to our Founding Fathers, YOU find that even the loss of liberty would not be grounds for armed resistance — well, when the loss is suffered by the other guy. But when anything evokes memories of the Holocaust, all bets are off?
Injustice ALWAYS happens one person at a time. Jews whine interminably about the Holocaust, conveniently forgetting that about as many Gentiles perished in the camps. No loss, right? We’re just goy boys, remember? Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel observes:
No, they wouldn’t. No, they didn’t. And if you want to know why, look in the mirror.
Jews “whine” about the Holocaust?… My God.
…and that somehow, it should be elevated above any of the other unspeakable atrocities committed by man against man in the past century or so.
Rwanda. The Sudan. Halabja. Kampuchea. When one life (or group of people) is elevated in importance over others, the value of all human life is diminished.
While I don’t always think the best of him, at least Tancredo has stepped up in an effort to do something about the Sudan.
I’m an individual, thank you very much. I mentioned my judaism, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, just to point out that what our shock-jock friend was suggesting bears an unflattering resemblance to the PRE-Holocaust Nazi policies vis-a-vis the jews. As you might notice, upon closer inspection, I did none of things you claim “they” habitually do in your response to MY post. There’s something just a leeetle bit wrong with that, my ineloquent friend. Since I am a jew, I am guilty of all crimes you, in your understanding of the world, attribute to jews in general? And here’s a real shocker for you: I actually I agree with the little bit of substance hidden in your anti-semitic diatribe: The vast majority of jews do indeed make a fetish out of the holocaust, in my opinion (not to diminish the real horrors that were involved). You’re right: The jews aren’t the only people to have ever suffered a brutal genocide, and, in fact, some jews have participated in some genocides at some times in history. Why? Because people are people, not races.
And if you had yanked that swastika out of your butt long enough to have made such a clear and unbigoted argument, I would have applauded you. But alas, it wasn’t to be. I defended you once against a very well-justified barb directed at your over-the-top, poorly composed, purple prose and self-congratulatory hot air. But you’ve exhausted my patience as well: The gloves are off. I may be wrong, but I strongly suspect that there is only one person your rhetoric has ever impressed.
Of course, any ol’ wanker can woo himself. The trick is to convince someone else to give you a hand.
good finish 🙂
serves ’em right, eh, CAR?
Since you’re unarmed in the art of logical argument, all you can do is engage in misdirection, and poorly at that. When did Car, or I, ever say anything, explicitly or implicitly, about Treblinka?
Here, let me try one: “So you’re saying it’s alright to molest toddlers as long as your heart’s in the right place, eh Rio?”
Your turn, Jack-ass.
….you are the most recent person to discover that riogrande is a nutcase. Welcome to the club, it’s growing!
Hey, fuck you, whiner.
How is it that Jews are entitled to whine about something that happened sixty years ago (and, which nothing can be done about at this juncture), but I shouldn’t complain about things that are happening to me now? And why should Jews be able to whine about their holocaust, while Australian aboriginals are not?
Guess you obviously missed my point. I’ll have to go back to the USENET practice of giving fair warning [“sarcasm alert!”]
I don’t remember suggesting that the holocaust was unique, or uniquely about Jews, for one thing. In fact, I have often argued the opposite of both of those positions.
I have often argued that people choosing to stop “purchasing” a “product” offered on the market due to offenses to their personal sensibilities is not an assault on the liberties of the offendor, which would involve governmental action depriving them of one of their politically defined rights (see my response concerning to your defense of the literal truth of the concept of “natural rights” on another thread).
As for the rest of your rambling nonsense, I couldn’t really make heads or tails of it. I’m not sure where you get your ideas about what I think, etc., but if you want to have a mutually enlightening, reasonable dialogue with intelligent people interested in politics, maybe it’s time to get your head out of your ass. Remember what I wrote about “loathing public orgies of self-righteous indignation?” Well, I’m not that fond of the private ones either. Get a grip, man.
And I’m not referring to the Gypsies, gays, and others who died. It is about all of us, about recognizing our human vulnerabilities to be drawn into the darkness and participate willingly. The Jews, etc. were merely the players in the drama.
It is about you, about me.
several years ago (maybe many years ago -I’m getting old) about a Jew who was placed in charge of a polish prisoner of war camp at the end of WWII, who behaved, in effect, like a Nazi. (Many) Jews wrote to complain that the segment detracted from the message that they had been the victims of the holocaust; anti-semites wrote to say, “see! what’d we tell you about those blood-sucking jews!” But the letter that the producers (understandably) loved most was a letter from a jewish holocaust survivor applauding the segment for reminding us all that the holocaust wasn’t about Germans and Jews, but about inhumanity in general.
Of course, the subtle truth is a moving target: Rio-chico thought he had found this one, but had missed it entirely. Instead, he managed to use even this noble truth as a platform for bigotry. I suppose there’s something tragically beautiful in that accomplishment….
Man’s inhumanity to man is one of the few constants in this universe. When we make it a practice of looking the other way, we make another Holocaust possible.
And Holocausts always happen one individual at a time.
Gee, we’re all holding our breathes waiting for your endorsement. I think there’s pretty wide-spread agreement here that your wisdom is an inspiration to us all, something we can all aspire to but never achieve. The thought -nay, the hope, the dream, the aspiration- that someday you may actually say to me “somebody’s getting it,” well, that’s enough to motivate me to get out of bed each morning and face the day bravely. Thank you…, just for being you.
When I look in the mirror, I see someone who does not subordinate his analyses to popular approval, or conventional wisdom, or jingoism, or the latest fads. When I look in the mirror, I see someone who fights vigorously for what he values and believes in, sometimes at great personal cost. But woe to the evil foe of all that is true and good, if he dares to be less banal than you! You condemn me for my ethnicity, imputing to me products of your own imagination. You condemn me for not marching in lock-step with your interpretation of what the founding fathers believed, the litmus test of a shallow idealogue. You seem to do a lot of condemning, but not much thinking.
The world is subtle and complex, not the nice, neat package of pretty platitudes you spout with such earnest and ignorant certainty. Anyone can play your rhetorical game of quoting an icon and then arbitrarily identifying the person you wish to discredit with the target of that icon’s words. As with everything you’ve written, it’s all form and no substance (and, I might add, your form is reminiscent of the eventually embarrassing entries in an adolescent diary). Not everyone can construct coherent, well-considered, consistent, and logical arguments. In political discourse, that’s the talent that is of most value. And even to the extent that the ability to write emotionally compelling arguments is also of value, you have demonstrated only a delusional belief in the possession of such talent rather than the slightest trace of the talent itself.
Can’t wait for coming race-baiter-pulls-free-speech-victimhood-card routine.
teaching people the meaning of the phrase “free speech.”
puts this subject in sharp relief. The Jesus of the Gospels waged an offensive of love, but some people simply love to be offensive.
Ideas are dangerous. They are an incitement. They can cause great harm. But the greater harm, I would submit, is in their suppression.
you certainly do help me manage the costs of my bulimia: Reading your posts is saving me a fortune on feathers.
and those who called for such action.
I would think less of any firm that continues to advertise on that show.
Should broadcasters be responsible for the advertisers they accept?
By way of example, I tried to persuade Michael Savage to drop Swiss-America Trading Company — a rare-coin peddler run by a convicted felon, based on credible information that came to me indicating that was it engaging in deceptive and high-pressure religion-based sales practices. Bonne chance!
And what about the radio stations that air unsavory characters like certain evangelists? A fair number of stations sticking with Bob Larson also got stuck with unpaid bills and thus, got what they deserved; Larson’s ATM (euphemistically called a ministry) is now insolvent, with a net accumulated deficit of ~$1M. But the little old ladies who lent him $10,000 each to start his ministry have never been paid back….
Al Sharpton. One is race-bater, the other is a religious-bater. One is African American the other Anglo. There are differences but yet they are both so alike.
Both are bankrolled by Republicans.
Al Sharpton bankrolled by Republicans? Please tell me where you got that tidbit of info!
Is Sharpton a Green or something now? That’s the only ostensibly lefty group I know of getting support from the right.
I can’t stand Gunny Bob and am against virtually everything he stands for. But I don’t like this censorship nonsense. I didn’t like it about Imus, and I don’t like it when it comes to this guy either.
I don’t know if that makes me liberal or conservative — but either way, unless Gunny Bob clearly breaks the law (and trust me, this doesn’t come close), I don’t think that he should be censored.
The first amendment is too important to have it be suspended for the likes of Gunny Bob.
has also been conflated in American law with spending money. (Whether that’s sane is a topic for another day.)
Three advertisers were reminded that their ads run in support of a radio host who says hateful, but likely legal things. They chose to spend their money elsewhere. It’s a smart business decision based not on censorship, but on freedom of speech.
is when the government squelches a citizen from speaking (like the Secret Service removing of the three people from Bush’s speech here in Denver); not when a radio station or television station kicks someone off of the air because they are losing ad dollars.
…when the government punishes you by depriving you of your other rights, either directly or indirectly, for exercising it.
That having been said, is it not possible for individuals to engage in censorship? Blogs like Townhall and John Andrews’ BrokebackAmerica routinely engage in it, often without any semblance of apology.
I would define censorship as the squelching, either directly or indirectly, of speech on the basis of content. Under this broader rubric, Gummy Bob is being censored. But is it better to squelch the speech, or confront it with more speech?
The censor’s cry is invariably the same, whether it is John Andrews or Al Sharpton: “Freedom of MY speech!” Your speech, of course, is strictly negotiable.
Sheesh.
If a publisher refuses to publish a book because in their opinion it is inflammatory or distasteful, is that censorship? I would argue that it is not censorship, but rather the publishing house deciding what they would like to be associated with. For instance, if I ran a publishing house I would not publish “The Turner Diaries” because I find them reprehensible. That is not censorship. If you want your book published, take it elsewhere.
Likewise, if I operate a blog, it is mine. I can edit in any way I see fit. So can Townhall, kos, and John Andrews.
When the government starts saying, “You cannot publish this” then it is censorship.
Although it is certainly within your legal rights to censor a blog, the fact that you censor certain points of view speaks volumes. Do you fear the Turner Diaries? I’ve never bothered to read the book myself, but your fear of those ideas evokes a certain measure of curiosity.
What idea could be so seductive — and so dangerous — that you would feel the need to censor it?
it is a matter of being associated with, or promoting, those ideas.
With regard to The Turner Diaries, Wikipedia describes it as this: “The novel depicts a violent racist revolutionary struggle in the United States that escalates into global genocide, leading to the extermination of all people who are not white. For the author, this was not a dystopian outcome, but rather the fulfillment of his ‘dream of a White world.'” This is an idea that I would chose to not be associated with or to promote.
Just as I am fairly certain that Air America radio will not be adding Ann Coulter to their radio lineup or Salem Broadcasting will be syndicating Randi Rhodes any time soon…the fact that they are chosing to not syndicate them does not equal censoring them. They have plenty of other outlets that are perfectly willing to syndicate them. Air America and Salem Broadcasting have a right to choose what and whom they want to syndicate.
Further, advertizers have the same right to chose whom they wish themselves and their products to be associated with.
that is particular rather than comprehensive a form of censorship, then? If I cowrite a book with a friend, and the book has a certain point of view, someone with a different point of view can accuse me of censorship for not having let them author a chapter? And if you agree, as I hope you do, that that is absurd, then why should Dem not have the right to coauthor a blog with the people of his choosing? Not all points of view have to be admitted into all products of expression for censorship to be avoided. In fact, demanding that all products of expression express all points of view would be de facto censorship, since by doing so no point of view would ever clearly be expressed!
Your logic is consistently inconsistent.
I really wanted to keep that deep-dish pizza down awhile! Oh, well….
You seem to defend free speech with that faux-Tom-Paine, dirigible-esque literary-oratory of yours, but complain that free speech critical of the free speech of others is censorship??!! You complain that my free speech, in which I said that I wouldn’t fight for a nation, is an affront to the values of the founding fathers. Really? And what if I choose to exercise my free speech by saying that I think that the founding fathers were a bunch of very bright guys who got lots of things wrong? Does my right to free speech end when it offends your secular idolatry?
Somewhere on this blog, you asked someone, with an utterly-undeserved air of superiority, “please tell me you’re not really a state legislator” (or something like that). You clearly hold yourself in high esteem. Yet you respond to a passing comparison between the suggestion of tracking muslims in america with the nazi practice of tracking jews -combined with an oblique reference to my own judaism- with a rambling diatribe against all jews for claiming that *they’re so special* for having suffered the holocaust. Ironically enough, not only had I not said what you attributed to me, but, when I do speak or write on the subject, say or write the exact opposite of what you attributed to me. But, hey, I’m jewish, so I must be guilty of what you believe all jews are guilty of.
And here we come full circle: Bullshit Bob’s error was in promoting the treatment of all members of a race or ethnic group as some homogenous block the individuals of which are undeserving of having their rights protected. Your error was remarkably similar. As a jew making an oblique reference to the holocaust, I am guilty of some universal ethnic crime that really riles you up. Wow, what a great defender of liberty the founding fathers have found in you!
You know, there may well be, hidden within the folds of your fatuous fantasy, a pretty decent and less-than-idiotic person waiting to get out. Don’t get me wrong: I haven’t yet seen any evidence of that. I’m just admitting to the possibility. You might do that poor, trapped victim of narcisism a favor by exercising a bit more intellectual humility, seeking to learn before you seek to teach so that, at least, when you beguile us with your self-assumed wisdom we can have the pleasure of occasionally saying, “hey, good point.”
of having to support free speech by silently tolerating intolerant speech is wafer thin.
It is not censorship to oppose the viewpoints you disagree with…especially when they are stupid, hateful and in this case unamerican.
Advertisers certainly have the right to spend their money how they want, as long as it’s a free and fair choice not based on government coercion.
It’s the coercion I’m worried about. When you have a political organization lobbying to ban essentially political speech solely for its political content (even if it’s hateful speech); that makes me uncomfortable, even if the visible hand of the government isn’t present.
This is a fine line… and I’d rather have a thousand Gunny Bobs on the air then have to use coercion to shut one of them down.
When it comes to censorship, you have to err on the side of caution.
When you don’t like the “product” you don’t support it with money. These companies, I can only assume, are run by grown-ups and made a considered decision based on the facts at hand. I can’t agree with the “coercion” label.
As a corporation I do not want my company associated with anyone like that. We only run on technical websites so it’s not an issue but if we do every end up on political sites I absolutely will require those placing them to insure that the content is civil and respectful. Which in our current political environment means nowhere.
Not quite sure what the big fuss is. It’s not like this big blowhard can string together a coherent sentence without offending any subsection of the populace.
Besides, how much market share can this low-brow show possibly have ? Seriously. It’s not like people are missing a Mensa meeting to listen to his reactionary, nativist, monosyllabic drivel. Does his mind-numbing pejorative commentary add anything to the public discourse ?
One half expects him to have his hand down his pants, Al Bundy style, as he searches that vacuous noggin of his for some hate-filled comment to spout on the airwaves. If only he could be the populist wonk he so desires to be.
Short of that, he’s a waste of good oxygen. I feel sad that I’ve expended even this much energy discussing him. Aren’t his fifteen minutes of fame over ? Can’t he slink off to whatever retirement village admits air-headed buffoons ?
jtrione@mac.com
Blowhard Bob is a joke. The few times I’ve tuned in he keeps repeating the call-in number hoping some loser will call in an join in the ranting. My guess is he’s trying to be provacative in a desparate attempt to become newsworthy and controversial. I forget, how did that work out for Don Imus?
It’s so sad to see a veteran fall apart in public. Worse when people try to cover for him.
tch
I wonder if Arlington will put a Fruit Loop on his headstone.
From Marbury v. Madison:
“2. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain the king himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court. …
[I]t is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.’
The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.
If this obloquy is to be cast on the jurisprudence of our country….”
…it is because it has been justly earned. Let’s just admit it: Unlike civilised countries, we are governed by men, not laws.
Free speech requires that ACCESS to speak not be restricted. Corporate Worldwide controls the majority of radio airwaves and limits ACCESS to those who promot its agenda. The vast majority of talk radio MUST support the Republican party. That is not fair.
Maybe gb was just shooting off his mouth to millions of people who could hear him all over the country and the world. Or MAYBE, the current administration was testing out an idea to see what public response would be and funneled it though gb. How do we know?
Who gets to have the same time on the same powerful airwaves to argue against gb? NO ONE. That is not fair.
If you turn off gb, does that mean that NO ONE else hears him? NOPE.
I don’t understand why there is so much angst when someone criticizes Muslims. The last time I checked the news, it wasn’t the Lutherans or the Jews or the atheists who were causing bloodshed and destruction around the world in the name of their God. I am sooo sick and tired of all of the pandering to the Muslims. Even if only 10% of them are terriorists, it’s still millions of them. The American Muslims certainly haven’t stood up to denounce the terriorism.
If there was a segment of the population of Methodists or Baptists who were killing, destroying property, and terrorizing innocent people, you don’t think pastors of those churches all over the world would rise up in indignation???? You know they would.
What Gunny Bob said is absolutely right. We need to monitor the Muslims at this point until we know for sure they aren’t instigating hatred and violence against those of us who are not Muslims. If you don’t like what Gunny Bob says, turn the dial for crying out loud.