U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(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) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

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
September 24, 2013 11:06 AM UTC

Do Ken Buck, Owen Hill Back Government Shutdown over Obamacare?

  • 76 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: FOX 31's Eli Stokols:

Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, who was the GOP nominee against Sen. Michael Bennet in 2010, and state Sen. Owen Hill have both signed on to a pledge supporting conservatives in Congress like Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who have vowed to continue fighting to cut off funding of the Affordable Care Act.

It appears as though they also support the effort by Cruz and other conservative Republicans in Congress to risk a government shutdown by tying the defund Obamcare provision to a spending bill that must pass before Oct. 1.

Neither Buck nor Hill’s campaigns returned FOX31 Denver’s phone calls requesting comment; but Buck left little doubt about his support for Cruz with a tweet this afternoon aiming to pressure Udall to #StandWithCruz.

And this statement from Colorado Democratic Party chairman Rick Palacio a short while ago:

"Coloradans have shown tremendous resolve, uniting to rebuild stronger and better in the wake of the recent flooding. However, the Republican Party's U.S. Senate candidates have sided with their extremist colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate who are threatening to shutdown the government and halt critical flood-recovery efforts," Palacio said. "If the Colorado GOP's Senate candidates can't stand up against extreme partisans, how can hardworking, middle-class Coloradans trust these politicians to stand up for them?"

—–

Left to right: Ken Buck, Owen Hill, Randy Baumgardner's 'stache.
Ken Buck, Owen Hill, Randy Baumgardner’s ‘stache.

The Hill newspaper noted that nearly every Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in 2014 supports Republican efforts to sacrifice the entire federal budget at the Tea Party altar in hopes of defunding Obamacare. As The Hill noted, there appear to be few 2014 candidates in opposition:

Two notable exceptions are former South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds (R) and Alaska Lieutenant Gov. Mead Treadwell (R), who have not fully embraced the efforts.

Rounds applauded the House bill, but he didn’t go as far as saying he’d be willing to have the government shut down in order to force the issue.

"I support the House CR — keep government running and shut down ObamaCare,” he said. “We don't know what (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid will do to the CR on the Senate side, but it's a fight worth having. This is a prime example of the importance of Republicans recapturing the Senate in 2014."

Treadwell, who is facing Miller, said he supports “any attempt to defund and repeal ObamaCare” but that “shutting down the government is not a good idea.” [Pols emphasis]

Not mentioned by The Hill, however, is how Colorado Senate candidates Ken Buck, Owen Hill, and Randy Baumgardner's mustache think about the budget sacrifice. Both Buck and Hill have signed a petition from the Senate Conservatives Fund to "defund Obamacare" (we just assume nobody bothered to ask Baumgardner), but neither have been publicly chatty about whether they support shutting down the entire federal government as a strategy to try to get there.

Do Buck and Hill have both feet firmly off the fiscal cliff, or are they just peering over the edge and maintaining a link to reason?

Tweet
Share

Comments

76 thoughts on “Do Ken Buck, Owen Hill Back Government Shutdown over Obamacare?”

  2. Nobody wants a government shutdown, but it's time for Obamacare to be put on ice once and for all. The American people don't support it, and the lies about Obamacare are already coming true. The will be death panels, and yu won't get to keep your insurance if you want. Republicans are trying to stop a disaster before it happens. Obamacare was cobbled together out of ideology and compromises, and it's going to destroy the greatest health care system in the world.

    Sometimes you have to throw your body on the machine and make it stop!

    1. If our health care system is the greatest in the world why don't we have the longest life expectancy, lowest costs, and lowest infant mortality rates?  Or close?  or even nearly close?  Oh, and lots of people on your side of the aisile do in fact want there to be a govt shutdown.  Surely you know that or are you so effing stupid that you are even that unaware??? 

      2. I said nobody WANTS a government shutdown. But if one comes in the battle to save this country from Obamacare, I will stand with them.

        There may be reasons for a lower life expectancy in America, but lack of access to health care is NOT one of them. Hospitals in America are required to treat everyone who comes through their doors regardless of ability to pay. Your Charles Dickens sob stories don't happen here. We don't need government to control one sixth of the economy when the current system works!

        1. How are your serum porcelain levels, dear?  You and "fishing blues" may want to get them rechecked.  And get some waterwings, you are seriously out of your depth.

        2. If the current system works,why do we have so many people without access to healthcare? If you're going to stand for something turn your cartoon weapon around.

      3. Golly little twit,why doesn't pol reprimand you for being rude?  I guess they are waiting for bigmama to complain to teacher.  

        nsb is correct, obamacare is a disaster and the majority of Americans know it.  Hell, even Obama and the dems know it. After five years they still don't know how to implement it.

        I say SHUT 'ER DOWN.  The government doesn't do anything but wastefully spend money anyway.  Let the clock stop for a week or two.  http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/  Most people won't be affected one iota.  

        1. NO ONE WANTS  A SHUTDOWN…except the very next Loonytarian nutjob that posts.  I'd say more, but I don't want to be rude. 

          People get turned away all the time for healthcare in the US, not everything that kills you requires an ER visit (which we all pay for at highly inflated prices, dumbass, a type of 'universal coverage; that is absolutely the least cost-effective there is).  The leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the US is medical expenses.  I believe that you believe that baseless factless GOP regurgitated talking points you bring here (both of you) and spit back up as if they were thoughtful analysis, but I happen to know better.  You are a fool, and a tool, and not very persuasive in your mindless repetitive barfing barking factless talking points. 

          Again, in the US we pay the most per capita for our health care and die sooner than other western and industrialized nations.  More of our babies die than in the Czech Republic, Korea, and 33 other nations–and its not peopel that have access to health care that drive those numbers up, its the people that your party is going after by starving them and killing them.  One by One.  Your party.  That's it.  That's the truth.  Deal with it, ignore it.  Regardless.  It is what it is and I see it.  Based on your posts here there is little surprise you don't…

           

      5. We do not have the greatest health care system in the world – unless by 'greatest' you mean 'ranking 35th globally in health while spending 17% of our GDP on said care'.  Canadians spend nearly half the dollars per capita as the US [$6,719 v. $3.673].  They do it with 19 doctors/10,000 people as opposed to our 26 doctors/10,000; they have 34 hospital beds/10,000 as opposed to our 31.  They have 101 nurses and midwives per 10,000 compared to our 94. 

        That seems like a system that would be defined as 'more efficient' when you look at the comparative matrix. My Republican friends love to talk about 'efficiences', in particular when they can replace labor with a machine or get someone to work longer hours for less money.  It's a head-scratcher why they seem to reject efficiences in the healthcare marketplace. 

        I'm looking forward to particpating in the program invented at the Heritage Foundation, promoted by Newt as Speaker of the House, implemented by Romney and upheld by the Roberts Supreme Court.

        If it's the train wreck Senator Cruz is prophesing about this afternoon [I sat in the Senate gallery briefly to watch], then the Republican caucus can rest easy that mid-terms and the 2016 general election will be kind to you. What makes me think that's not what they really believe?

         

    2. But they're not! They get paid no matter what! You post here not knowing that?

      No red politician is "throwing himself on the machine to make it stop"!

      The Congressional and Senate republicans that are willing to throw the world's economy into a cataclysmic fall, who are literally willing to see ALL Veterans' benifits cancelled, are wiling to cause a Standard and Poors downgrade that……….wait for it……….will make borrowing money BY ANYBODY, for ANYTHING so expensive that the markets will undoubtably crash, yes THOSE republicans………know they'll get paid no matter what happens to the country. You and me. They don't care. As bad as they are, they'll still get 172k for being incompetent, and anarchists as well. And they have no idea how bad an idea this is.

      As neither do you, obviously.

      40 of these republicans in Congress bwere elected into ultra whacko congressional districts by red voters that saw only the most extreme anti government candidates as worth their vote. The result was people that hav zero experience in running a government. These incompetent members simply have no idea what is going to happen. Many don't know what type of government we have, what the debt ceiing does, and even how a Bill becomes Law.

      Seriously.

      No, the Affordable Care Act isn't what it will be down the road, but it's better than what came before it. And it is LAW, not a bill.

      And simply road blocking it isn't worth the absolute shit sandwich that's coming if the government gets shut down.

      By the way, 60% of Americans say it's not worth it to shut down the government, so don't bring that bullshit here.

    3. If access to great hospitals, technology etc. is increasingly  imited to fewer Americans, then no matter how good they are, fewer Americans benefit.  That's why our stats suck compared to other modern industialized countries' in almost all basic health areas while our costs are much higher. It's like an expanding economy that only benefits a minority at the top. It doesn't make for a prosperous population, just a prospeous few. The country may be richer  but the people in it aren't.

    4. Oh lying and violent one, please outline the fabulous Republican alternative to Obamacare. What, you don't have one? Wait, you just can't believe that Obamacare was originally a Heritage Foundation idea. Turn off your Fox & Rush & Drudge, and learn the truth, silly rabbit.

  3. Life expectancy, #33.  The GREATEST-not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

    Infant mortality #36 The GREATEST-not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

    Most expensive helth care per capita: United States!  Hey WE ARE #1!!!! We pay the most, but don't live the longest, and have a higher infant mortality rate than Korea and 34 other nations…

    We may have some of the best hospitals and greatest medical technolies, but that is NOT the same thing as a 'health care system.'  Unless you're a shill with the IQ of a tongue depressor. 

    1. But we do have some of the best hospitals, and Americans rate the current system higher than anyone else in the world. Obamacare is a solution looking for a problem, and the solution is government control. That's why patriots are willing to sacrifice to stop it.

      2. Which I noted in my comment.  We have some great hospitals. So? Hospitals are not the same as a 'health care system.' and if you don't understand even that basic fact I am incredulous you can dress yourself.  Can you? 

      3. Oh, N3B. You truly owe FB a debt for making you look like a reasonable person. And all you had to do was refrain from making personal insults.  Nice, eh? To answer your claims: 

        "Obamacare is a solution looking for a problem": I think Club Twitty did a good job explaining what the problems are. For an industrialized country, the US of A has dismal outcomes in

        • life expectancy  
        • infant mortality,
        • we spend more $$ per capita than any other country.
        •  mental health care is not widely, publicly, available.The ACA will include mental health care in minimum "essential health benefits", for the first time. This answers a new favorite Republican meme: gun control = bad, mental health care = good.

        What will the ACA look like in Colorado, and how will this help Coloradans?

        So if one looks on the Colorado Health Exchange Website, one sees:

        • no death panels ( one of your claims)
        • you can keep existing insurance (another claim)
        • Medicaid is unaffected for those over 65. Under 65 will be expanded in Colorado. 
        • The dreaded "rate shock" has not happened (another claim)
        • Seniors have already been getting refund checks s from insurance price gouging, and the "donut hole" in prescription costs was eliminated.
        • Most common preventive care exams(e.g. mammograms, pap smears, prostate exams) are covered for free, and have been for about a year through insurers because of the ACA.
        • Young adults are able to be covered by parents until age 26.

        My uninsured daughter, now over 26, will be able to buy insurance for about $50 a month after the subsidy. Do you really want her and people like her showing up at the ER when sick, generating huge bills that they can't pay, and which are passed on to other consumers?

        I have a pre-existing condition, which in fact did prevent me from buying individual insurance prior to the ACA. Now, I'm in a high risk pool, and can't be denied coverage. Same with children with pre-existing conditions, but that's been implemented for awhile. 

        In your ideal world, would you want us all to remain uninsured, get sicker, and/or quietly die off, accessing ERs only when desperate? 

        Yes, the ACA is not perfect. There are legitimate criticisms and things which need to be tweaked –

        Because something is imperfect, but makes huge strides towards improving American's health and lowering costs, is no reason for "patriots to sacrifice to stop it." 

        Many of your fellow Americans will be healthier and spend less doing it. And you will be OK with that. 

         

         

        1. One of the problems we have in this country is that too many people look for others to pay their bills.  The government doesn't have any money.  They take from productive people and give to non-productive people.

          Instead of always looking for a hand out from your neighbor that worked a little harder and smarter, this is what one should do.  First, look to family.  Why expect strangers to pay your bills if your own family won't help?  Next, (assuming a person has one) look to your church.  Third, look to charity (voluntary contribution).  The government should have only a small fund to act as a safety net for those that still need help aftter the first three are exhausted.  this total depenency on government will bankrupt the country.  Then what will the truly needy do?     

              2. You didn't offer a solution in your reply to Duke, you simply ran off on a stereotypical teabag rant that answers nothing. A dodge. A con. A chuck and duck. A bluff.

                Duke has you exact.

                However……………answer me this Call it an attempt to redeem yourself. You're saying, at least I'm under the impression that you're saying that the current cruz threat to shut down the government is a "fight" against "government and people that get a government handout."

                Ok.

                Explain how the crux of the Affordable Care Act lies in private insurance companies carrying policies for money and that's a handout.

                How is closing the senior donut hole or a young adult being carried on a  parental policy a government handout?

                Or do you even know what the donut hole is?

                How is a policy holder getting a rebate back from the insurer if the provider spends more than 20% on overhead a government handout?

                Or do you even know about the requirement that a provider spends 80% on care?

                So far, you sound like the pissed off 9 year old that has no argument, but thinks smartass childish quips are the equivalent of substantive debate.

                You're falling behind here, kid.

                So far, you owe me this assignment as well as the overhead costs of Medicare and your alternative to the current Health care Law. (Not the ER, genius).

                If you even know how or where to start your research. limbaugh can't and won't help ya.

                Get busy, cletus, you're burnin' daylight. And I'm salivating at the thought of humiliating you some more.

                 

                  1. The one that got to me, that made me detemined to expose him, was his comment to the grieving friend or relative of the 14 year old  boy murdered in gang violence in Aurora. She said that the boy hadn't set himself up to be killed.

                    FB's response: (apologies for his language)

                     fishingblues10 days ago

                    @iloveyou24    "respect is something that is earned"

                    Read it and weep you ignorant bitch.  Freaking no-class lowlifes thinking the world owes them.  Get an education you lazy stupid bitch.  A living is also something that is earned. 

                     

                    2. That should get him banned from any reasonable site. Anyone who would post something like that is not even good enoug to be called a piece of shit.  I hope he doesn't meet me in a dark ally.  Punk. 

                    3. No reply button available after your comment Twitty so I'm going to reply via mamma's just to make one more point on the subject even though I promised not to. This is my last, last word on it.

                      I'm a little surprised by your demand for banning. On the one hand you insist on encouraging the troll with replies. Then you demand the troll be banned? Why delegate to ColPols what we can do ourselves just by not feeding the troll? 

                      Banning will just make him a legend in his own mind whereas ignoring the troll makes it no fun for it so it drifts off without us making a martyr/hero of it. 

                      I hope ColPols doesn't oblige. 

                    4. BC- I meant on any responsble site he left such dribble on.  If he says thatkind of hateful crap here, I'll support him being booted.  Who would he be a martyr too?  His action figures? 

                      But otherwise, he gets the shit he deserves.  I think he's a pubnk and I would like to tell him that in person rather than him hiding behnd his bullshit.  And, no offense intended, but you're not exactly consistent in your 'do not feed the troll' behavior… 

                    5. You gotta be kidding me!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                      This guy's not just an asshole, he's mentally ill. Gotta be.

                      I don't know what's worse, his sick fuck posts or me giving him a platform.

                      Won't happen again. 

                    6. Twitty, there are two kinds of sites. There is the kind of hate mongering wacko rightie site that eats up the kind of thing this troll directed against a grieving mother and encourages it. That kind of site won't ban this troll. That kind of site will celebrate it.

                      Then there are civilized sites, including this one, where such stuff is met with abhorrence. If it spewed such stuff here, but it's more careful here, the troll probably would get banned but being banned from a commie librul site just gives this type of troll more to brag about on the other kind of site and gives it something to feel good and brave about, standing up to them commies and all that.

                      Cutting off its oxygen on the civilized sites and letting it slink back to the slimy world it came from and where it isn't interacting with or influencing anyone redeemable anyway simply strikes me as a better option.  

                      But clearly we're going to have to agree to disagree on this subject and it will be with no ill will over it on my part. 

                    7. Wow, you don't mean the gangbanger that was defending another gangbanger, do you?  She even spoke in "gang slang".

                      Are you a stalker bigmama?  Do I need to hire security.  Are you going to bring your 'oh so tough', friend littletwit to come and get me? Should I be afraid?  You seem a little unhinged.

                       

                      As to what is said

    2. Way to cherry pick stats twit.  We do indeed have the most expensive and it needs an overhaul.  You don't really believe the federal government is capable of fixing it, do you?  

      1. Hell NO fishingblues, we don't need the government to be involved in healthcare !  All we need to do is ask health insurers and hospitals to be more ethical, play fair and be nice and I am 100% sure they will do so.  I mean, its not really rocket surgery or brain science !  Problem solved.  Next !!!!!

        1. Typical liberal response.  Too shallow to swim.  No, we don't ask insurers and hospitals to be nice.  We make them play nice and be competitive.  Get the government the hell out of it and let the unfettered free market dictate costs. 

            1. You won't be getting a reply to that one, CT.

              That one's a kill shot.

              There's no way this troll's even come close to trying to insure himself given these posts.

               

          2. Yes, the federal government can enact and sustain successful policies. To assume it never can is just as silly as ascribing some eteranl moral quality to the unfettered free enterprise system that it will always solve all social, economic and political problems in the best interests of the the public.

            The free enterprise system is neither moral or immoral. It is amoral. It exists to produce wealth and by and large it has done that better than any other economic system ever invented by the human race, but let no one assume that the outcomes it produces are always in the best interests of the public or individual Americans, or that it considers and insures that the values held by individuals or groups are always fulfilled by it. It produces wealth because that is what it is designed to do but it isn't the least bit interested in other values, moral or political, that individual citizens want to protect.

            Lets use health insurance companies as an example. If they are publicly traded, the management of company is tasked with producing the greatest return for the stockholders. Nothing wrong with that, but how do they do that. One way is to deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions because those individuals are a drain on the profit margin and therefore on the return to stockholders. Again, this isn't immoral because in an unfettered free enterprise system, management is doing exactly what they are supposed to do – mazimize profits and the corresponding return for stockholders. And in an unfettered free enterprise system, the companies will never consider other values because, other than maximizing profit, such a system isn't designed to.

            The only way to insure that other values, like insuring those with preexisting health conditions, are considered is through public policy enacted by the government. Only the government has the authority and legitimate amount of power to insure that other values, that may very well not make pure economic sense, are not only considered but enacted and followed.

            The Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act reepresent the same kind of values being imposed by our elected representatives to insure we have clean air to breath and clean water to drink. In the world of unfettered free enterprise such values were never considered, not because of any immorality on the part of the business community, but because to take on such burdens voluntarily would take away from the profit a business could make.

            The idea that unfettered free enterprise somehow encompasses and fulfills all the values a society or individuals believe are important is nonsense. It doesn't do that and never will, again not because of any inherent immorality, but because it is designed specifically to produce wealth tot he exclusion of other values.

            And by the way, the federal government has been very successful in past endeavors. The federal government won World War II, it won the Cold War (a forty-five year effort), it established and has successfully maintained a supplemental retirement system known as Social Security, it has fed the poor who couldn't afford food, and it has given people their God given rights by winning the Civil War and eventually providing laws that first guaranteed those rights and then later used the power of the federal government to enforce them against individuals and groups who "unfettered" would have never allowed certain kinds of people to thrive in our society. The federal government is fully capable of successfully providing policies and programs that benefit all of us.

            1. The Clean Water Act?  Bah!  Flaming rivers cut down n lighting costs! 

              The Clean Air Act?  I like to see the air I breathe before I breathe it, thank you! 

  4. One of the problems we have in this country is adolescent-minded ideological pure basement dwelling nutjobs that think their high-school political philosphy derived from a bad fiction novel whose author died on the public dole has some correlation with reality, and thus argue incessenatly as if others who do not participate in their imagineered novel-based silly bullshit fantasyland, are somehow foolish. 

  5. Now I know why you are all on here hand-wringing and weeping and whining every day.  You are all on the dole and you come here for affirmation that you are still worthwhile people.  

    2. Here's the kicker……………………what are the odds this fb guy's "on the dole"?

      8-5?

      Not sayin' it would be bad if he is, but it's rather crass (and typical of libertarians) if he is, given what he posts.

      2. And let's not forget, fb's, n3b's, randpaul's and kiddie cruz's idol and patron saint, the mother of the libertarian "up by your bootstraps" mantra, paul ryan's patron saint, ayn rand, went "on the dole", via Social Security disability, the moment she qualified,

        Don't feel bad, fb, you are definitely not alone in your con.

          1. MJ, I remember the knots paul ryan tied himself into when that little factoid, plus her athiest belief, got out. 

            Facts can really screw up a good libertarian's day.

            1. You people that are casting dispersions on the Libertarian philosophy obviously have no clue what it is.  It is quite apparent by your mindless and ignorant comments.  

              As I have already stated, as a Libertarian, I am much more centered in my positions than 98% of the people posting here.  You all have been indoctrinated into the belief that, if something is not like you, therefore it must be evil.    

              Fro your edification and education:

              http://civilliberty.about.com/od/libertarianpolitics/qt/libert_platform.htm

              1. I think rocco's point goes more to the hypocrisy of politicians like Paul Ryan who try to walk the line between Libertarian and Republican. Today's Republican Party wants to be the Libertarian Party (or at least the business people funding it want that…), but they have the Southern Strategy and the Moral Majority tied around their necks like albatrosses.

                So the up-and-comers who want to be King President have to tap dance between the various constituencies. Ryan like Ron Paul before him chose to distance himself from the Libertarian social stances while retaining the economic ones. They aren't Libertarians; I'm not even sure they'd be economic Libertarians if they were members of a party that wasn't pushed to so many extremes.

  7. Rep36, thanks for a thoughtful analysis on how the free enterprise system, looking to maximize profit, works with a government looking for the "public good", i.e. clean air and water. Profit and public goods are not, and never have been, mutually exclusive. And I think even we old lefties are disillusioned with how communist states "take care" of the public good. Chernobyl and China's air….need I say more?

    Just as businesses profit from a public education system which provides a pool of educated workers, and consumers with enough $ to buy its products,  businesses will profit from employees who take fewer sick days,  and are genuinely passionate about their jobs, not just staying there "for the insurance". 

      1. If the GOP were run by people like R-36 and Craig and other former Republicans past and present on this blog, I might very well be helping them or working alongside them.

        I wonder if fishing and n3b are old enough to even remember the Republican Party prior to its Clinton conspiracy meltdown.

  8. I guess you didn't get those water wings yet, I'd head back to the shallow end, and quit peeing in the pool.

    One of the problems we have in this country is adolescent-minded ideological pure basement dwelling nutjobs that think their high-school political philosphy derived from a bad fiction novel whose author died on the public dole has some correlation with reality, and thus argue incessenatly as if others who do not participate in their imagineered novel-based silly bullshit fantasyland, are somehow foolish.

    One= subject; is=verb; adolescent-minded …are somehow foolish = object. 

    1. fishin'blues, where are those assignments you owe me?

      Come on, young'n time's awastin'. Show some acumen.

      Or do you know what acumen means?

      Love it or leave it, smartass.

      1. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer. After looking around at the many places online where FB has waddled in, reached into his Stars-N-Bars Depends and smeared his Libertarian Truths on the wall, it's obvious: THIS IS HIS LIFE.  

        All of his posts are filled with hatred, bitterness, and a desperate need to engage someone, anyone in a personal battle.  His posts on race are lifted (and sometimes linked) directly from the worst of Free Republic, and to say he exhibits a "problem" with women is like saying Miley Cyrus has a mild yearning for attention.   His rants against Liberals basically boil down to the same point:  Someone is trying to be nice to someone else, and that makes him angry. 

         

  9. Libertarians want to make–sorry, I mean 'allow'–little children to work in sweatshops.  Its right there in the platform–its their 'right' to be exploited by adults.

    Why 'make' them go to school when they could be fixing widgets or cleaning out fracking trailers? 

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

121 readers online now

Newsletter

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