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%
October 17, 2014 12:49 PM UTC
37 Comments
Surprised this personhood article is not by Jason Personhood. He must be looking into the details of the drug dealer who currently holds the office.
I guess when the Cory didn't really play football story was blown up the guys decided to go back to abortion 24 X 7. After all, it was working so well.
They can no longer conceal their desperation. What will be in the "legal penumbras" next? Prima Nocta? It's limited only by the vivid imaginations of desperate Democrats.
But it's almost over…
Here's the profession that I think you guys like to vividly imagine: Forensic Vagina Investigators.
While Pols is protected from libel claims under the DMCA, that protection doesn't extend to commenters. While you may believe Mark Udall got off easy when he was arrested with drugs on board decades ago, saying someone is a drug dealer is not saying that.
Possession of large amounts of drugs infers the intent to distribute, does it not?
You speaking from experience? Do the drugs help your rash?
Was he charged with intent to distribute? Was there a scale involved? Was the marijuana separated into separate baggies? Were there confidential informants saying they were being sold drugs?
achole doesn't care about facts, that is why he can support con man cory and both ways bob.
I think Progressicat is right.
In any case, it doesn't matter. This is not even close to becoming an issue in this election. Udall haters no doubt think it's terrific but it's not even being talked about in a general way. So people who would never vote for Udall eat this stuff up. So what?
BC, on point as usual. Ignore the troll defecating in the corner.
Geez, mama, wish I could ignore that mental image!
We're chock full of delightful images on here:
It must be election season. We get the mental images that are not safe for prime time.
Well, it doesn't infer because only a reasoning entity can do that, nor does it imply, which is what you meant to say. Common error.
As for the rest, no, having a large amount of drugs doesn't imply that one is a dealer, which requires selling those drugs on to others, one might be saving them for one's own use, buying them for others who chipped in for a score, etc. My statement, however, was less about the implication and more about the fact that making defamatory statements can have unfortunate ramifications and, as a troll, you should be careful when walking that line.
As a troll I'm sure his intention is to be as defamatory as possible and doesn't recognize that there is a line, much less care about walking it. Why feed it?
PC, Here is what I found:
In order to charge someone with this crime, the court must find that the person who possessed the illegal item intended to offer it to other people, for sale or otherwise. This intent to distribute may be inferred based on the various circumstances. For instance, if someone is arrested while in possession of several small individually bagged portions of an illegal drug, then it may be assumed that those bags were for sale and the person may be charged with possession with intent to distribute. The circumstances do not have to be that obvious that the person is intending to sell the illicit object. Simply by finding unusually large amounts of an illicit substance can imply intent to distribute.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-possession-with-intent-to-distribute.htm
AC, do please post your evidence that he was convicted of dealing drugs, won't dear?
Nice try, PH…but he won't…he is a cockroach…nothing more.
You shouldn't insult cockroaches that way.
Possession of human DNA might infer you have a functioning brain, which you clearly do not.
Don't worry about this jerk off. He is grasping at straws because this article isn't about Udall. It's about Tim Neville and he is up against a really good Democrat in Jeanne Nicholson. She has been running a great campaign in Jeffco and knows how to win after getting by Tim Leonard in to 2010 Republican wave year. Neville has also been undermined by his relative on the Jeffco School Board.
This little jerk off has conceded the governors race and retaking the state legislature so the only thing he/she/it has left is heaping on the abuse of Udall. Where I come from they are known as losers in life. Petty little people who get their kicks out of interrogating devastated women to find out if that it was her diet that caused the murder. Fuck them and their obsession with controlling women. Nicholson is a formidable opponent who voted for better gun regulations and a more effective government. She has an excellent chance of winning reelection based on her merits.
Nah, that could never happen, oh wait:
But WIFone and WIFtwo above don't care! Lie, cheat, steal — it's just about winning — consequences of their actions are other people's problem, not theirs.
It's just common sense that once a fertilized egg is declared a person it must be treated as a person under the law. That would certainly make all abortion murder and miscarriages could certainly be subject to investigation just as sudden deaths of babies, crib death, or of anyone, for that matter, is subject to investigation. There's no sense in any of the pro-personhood folks denying that because it's so clearly true. A legal person is a legal person with the same rights as any other. Period. I think we can all just take that obvious reality as a given and make our decisions about personhood amendments and the candidates that support them bearing that in mind.
Every uterus a crime scene, which the coroner must secure until the body can be examined. It's the law. There's no escaping the stupid with this shit.
Con Man Cory Gardner and this Neville jackass are cut from the same corrupt, misogynistic cloth. Both will be punished severely and decisively by CO women at the ballot box.
In short: Keep your filthy goddam fat old white-man Teabagger hands off of and out of womens' bodies, you female-hating, condescending pricks!
If old white men had to have babies, abortion clinics would be like drive though jiffy lubes.
.Once again, piling on to old white men…there are many old, white, men, ( not as svelte as they once were) who are quite progressive and are not at all like the stereotype you are discussing. While I wholeheartedly admit that the majority of OWM have, through the centuries, made life miserable for many who were not OWM, not all of us, ahem… are like that.
Once in a while it would be nice to hear a kind word for benevolent old white guys…fat or otherwise….
just saying….
". . . We're good guys, but we can't be good every night. We're good guys, but we can't be good out whole lives . . ." Our Whole lives — Hold Steady
. . . that's about all I got, buddy!
For the record, I know lots of progressive old white guys, and Duke is just one of them.
I happen to be married to an old white guy and he is progressive and pretty nice. It does seem that for the most part, men like to dictate what a woman does with her body. I don't know if I would get an abortion if I had to make that decision, but I don't feel like I can dictate what a person what a person does (whether it is a member of the disgraceful congress or any other person). I should not put everyone in the same barrel and I am sorry for that.
No apology necessary, Debbie…if I may call you Debbie (my sisters' name).
I am not upset in any way about your comments, because they are not untruthful. For instance, this comment…
…is accurate, I believe. It is quite proper for you to rail at the blatant unfairness perpetrated by a society ruled by old, white, unenlightened men. But once in a while, try to remember that we are not all the same and toss a kind thought at some OWM who deserves it.
By the way…I happen to be a member of the Mesa County League of Womens' Voters (not for women only!) and have been a spokesperson for that group for quite a while. I encourage all you OWM out there to join and participate in the very important work being done by the League…then you, too, can be an N-OWM (nice old white man)
Colorado’s No on 67 Coalition Demands Hulu Allow Rape Survivor Ad To Run
Of course it meand investigating every pregnancy that doesn’t end in live birth.
it means a zygote can own property.
it means a fertilized egg is a citizen of the USA (read the 14th amendment); if it was fertilized here.
it means a pregnant woman can be charged with child abuse.
It means doctors who end pregnanancient can get longer sentences than a rapist.
It means that the logical next step is to restore biblical marriage which included a rapist wed to his victim (s).
It means that any woman who hasn't given birth by age 30 is suspect of illegal contraception.
When IUDs are outlawed, only outlaws will have IUDs . . .
What's missing in the discussion is any talk about heterosexual sex that involves women of child-bearing age. It's already established that "personhood" (I refuse to dignify the concept by using a capital 'P') would abolish many forms of birth control. The Pill is probably on the way out because it would prevent creation of a "human being;" same for condoms. That leaves only the tried and true "rhythm method" favored by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, but good only for married couples. So much for the SCOTUS decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, a prime target of many religious right organizations.
So, will married women, who have sex, have to submit for immediate testing to determine if an egg has been fertilized? I'll offer that control of sex is the ultimate objective of the personhood crowd; and establishing religious control over the reproductive lives of Colorado families and citizens. Regards, C.H.B.