CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 18, 2010 09:19 AM UTC
108 Comments
Loading ...
I seriously doubt you wake up every day considering whether you are being to hard on Ken. I think you wake up every day trying to find some attack on Ken that will save Bennet’s sorry excuse of a campaign.
How the hell do you know what Buck meant when he chose to use the word “homogeneous”? It’s a very dangerous word to throw out there when speaking about the military.
I would think someone who has a degree in Letters would comprehend the power of words. They can be even more powerful coming from a representative of the U.S. Senate.
Do I think that Nancycronk takes hyperbole way too far? Absolutely. It still doesn’t negate the fact that Buck has spewed out something truly offensive and dangerous. No amount of spin by you can fix that. No amount of attacking people is going to distract from it either.
It will be interesting to see if it gets national attention though. I think with everyone watching the Values Voters Hypocrisy Show and having a field day with Christine O’Donnell it will most likely get overlooked.
Why does the military have uniforms? Why do they stand at attention in rows? Why do they all shave their heads? Why do they march in step? The whole point IS homogeneity – you’re part of a unit and you give up aspects of your individuality when you join the military and instead you become part of a unit. It’s the only way to produce a superior fighting force. What exactly do you think is this “dangerous” meaning of homogeneity?
Believe me when I say there is A LOT of individuality in our armed forces. It’s actually what makes it one of the best, if not THE best fighting forces in the world.
Definition of homogeneous: all of the same or similar kind or nature.
As a Letters major you should know the definition and know why using it in the context of the military is dangerous. Then again, you know nothing about the military or military life. Your ridiculous descriptors (march in step, shaved heads, uniforms) is a child’s picture of what soldiers look like.
He’s telling the truth. It’s called the chicken hawk syndrome.
The uniforms are so that you recognize which people are on “your side” and which on “the enemy’s side”. The shaved heads are to minimize time spent on personal needs. It probably also reduces the risk of lice and other parasites, especially when stationed in places where they are common. They stand in rows and march in step to teach discipline and teamwork, and make it easier on their leaders to give orders.
It makes no difference if someone is gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, transgender,or transexual. It makes no difference which religion, color, ethnicity, language of origin, or political affiliation a soldier identifies with. None of these characteristics is in any way relevant to members of the armed services doing their jobs.
The concept of “homogenous” was used to argue against women and African-Americans from joining the armed services and/or serving in the more desirable roles by earlier bigots. Now, Ken Buck is using the same word, and the same argument to discriminate against fellow Americans on the basis of sexual preference.
The entire purpose of fighting for our country is to guarantee “liberty”. Any idea what that means, really, BJ? It’s about every American, in theory, enjoying the same civil rights and the same opportunities — whether they are a man or woman, and regardless of religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, primary language, culture, color of skin, etc. Liberty is a synonym for freedom. Restricting the civil rights of another is the opposite of liberty.
Denying the civil rights of those who are fighting to ensure our civil rights is like “screwing for the cause of virginity”. It is an oxy-moron.
The concept of “homogenous” has no relevance to the armed services whatsoever.
my impression was that what Ken meant by “homogeneity” was what your first paragraph was getting at – discipline and teamwork. You do have to admit, it makes it very awkward when guys are living and showering in the same rooms and they know their roommates are gay. I’ve been an R.A. and it’s the same situation in a college dorm – it can cause problems. Would you be in favor of guys and girls in the military bunking in the same rooms and using the same bathrooms and showers?
That’s not homogenity, that’s homophobia, literally meaning “fear of being around homosexuals”. Yes, there was a point in high school and college for me that I used to be uncomfortable around lesbian women. Then, I got to know some, and became friends with some. Over time, I not only increased my comfort with them, but became best friends with them.
Reducing homophobia takes time, and a willingness to be honest with oneself, and if you have trusting friendships, being honest with your friends, as well. Our culture teaches homophobia. We have to consciously un-learn it.
For me personally, by dealing with the homophobia I once had, I moved to a psychological place where being next to a lesbian woman was no different than being next to a straight man. There is always a possibility they may “like” you in a sexual way, but chances are good they don’t. You have the thought and it goes away. Life goes on. It is not a big deal at all.
In regard to the shower thing, people are not animals. We all have the ability to censor our impulses and behavior and act appropriately, don’t you think?
BJ — I sincerely appreciate your honesty and decency in bringing this up. To say one feels awkward in certain situations is honest — there is power in truth. However, homegenity is not the same thing, IMHO.
You should know I am a straight woman, a mother, now very liberal obviously, who grew up in an extremely conservative, religious home as a child. Sadly, homophobia was the norm where and when I was growing up. We can all make a journey toward reducing our homophobic tendencies.
I’m a “Cronkophobe”, a “Polsophobe”, and a “Jihadophobe”. People are allowed to disagree. In fact, this gets to the heart of what is wrong with liberals. Liberals thing that not only do you have to tolerate other people, you have to agree with their views (unless of course, they are “intolerant” themselves, which of course leads to a huge contradiction with Islam). Conservatives believe in freedom to think for yourself and form your own opinions of the world instead of accepting what the talking heads tell you.
At least H-MAn is paid to do what he or she does.
You guys need to get over this idea that the problem with the world is “homophobia”. Are guys “womenophobes” because they don’t want to have female roommates? Are women “manophobes” because they don’t want male roommates? It can also become an issue of sexual harassment by gays.
I needed that laugh, EK.
They used everyone.Old, young, men and women. No one cared. Winning and killing the enemy mattered.
Israel does the same(except the exempted ultra orthadox).
You want to send kids into battle? Well I suppose that Jihadists do the same, but I thought we had some sort of morals here in America.
That’s an interesting defense of DADT. Might be an entirely original one too.
Seems to me that allowing homosexual students on college campuses really hasn’t caused any serious problems. But what do I know? I’m not a grad student.
You do not understand the US military.
You saw a movie or read a book or heard someone tell his or her story and you mistake that for understanding you do not have.
When the R position was “leave it to the generals” there was some logic to their position. It was still wrong, but it wasn’t that offensive. If FDR and Truman had done that we would not have integrated the forces when we did.
Now that the generals are mostly saying what most Americans are mostly saying – who cares? – we cannot listen to the generals. It’s still wrong, but it is so freaking transparently shallow and homophobic.
It just doesn’t matter.
There are things that people do and believe that are disruptive to the discipline and order required to run the military as successfully as it can be run. Just being gay isn’t one of them.
Being gay can be highly disruptive to the military when it creates a hostile work environment. Well, not “being gay”, but “flaunting gayness”.
Racial integration can be highly disruptive to the military by creating a hostile work environment.
Gender equality can be highly disruptive to the military when it creates a hostile work environment.
Religious difference can be highly disruptive to the military when it creates a hostile work environment.
Political differences can be highly disruptive to the military when it creates a hostile work environment.
And a hundred other things.
But soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are trained to ignore all that baloney and do their job. To focus on the mission and not worry about the stuff that doesn’t contribute to that. To do it for low pay and little to no gratitude. To know that if we are killed or injured, we may or may not receive services. But that everyone will fly a flag on Memorial Day and Veteran’s Day and think hey, I pay taxes so it’s all good
Yeah – your really smart so figure it out. Meanwhile, please stfu, thank you.
BTW – you are still welcome.
Anything can be highly distractive to the military when it creates a hostile work environment — frilly curtains, sugar cereals, too many windows, not enough televisions, dark corners, farm animals, non-sticky tape, lost thumb-tacks, frequent sunshine, etc. Take any noun and adjective and it can be “highly distractive to the military when it creates a hostile work environment”.
.
Gender can be an issue as well if it creates a hostile work environment. That’s why men and women have separate living quarters in the military. You think gender doesn’t matter? Watch “Speed and Angels”. Gender can have very important psychological effects that affect someone’s performance, and it is not unreasonable to try to accommodate that by giving women their own living quarters.
Do you realize that one of the points of the film is that it now seems ridiculous that prior to 1993, American women were barred from being fighter pilots?
And that now most observers don’t understand the resistance?
One day I expect that same kind of huh? when openly gay military are serving.
Pretty sure that your argument will apply to gay men as well.
Neanderthal Man was a hoax
BJ is afraid of gays. That is why he hasn’t joined the military. A fact for which I remain grateful
Grays.
You have no idea what it’s like as a straight guy in the military, let alone gay. No fucking clue. It is NOTHING like being in college. To hear you compare what I, and many on this site, have gone through with “the dorms” is intensely insulting.
I don’t know what dorm life is like nowadays, but I’m pretty sure you don’t go weeks without a shower. I’m pretty sure you don’t have sand, dirt, and a friends blood caked on you when you DO get to a shower.
We weren’t thinking about another guys ass. Or sharing a tent/room with another guy. All we’re thinking about is the past mission. What we could have done better. What we could have done faster. We’re thinking about the next mission. And if we’re the ones who won’t come back this time.
If we’re in leadership roles, we’re thinking about holding our team, or what’s left of it, together.
When I had, if I had downtime, where the mission wasn’t intruding my thoughts, or the faces of friends I had lost weren’t intruding, THEN I might think about the partner waiting at home for me.
That’s what it is to be in the military, gay or straight, Beej. Pick up a rifle or shut the fuck up about it. Your ignorant opinions have pissed me off before but this is beyond the pale.
In fact given the numbers who serve outside of combat I think you’d agree it is very little about combat. That is not intended in any way to minimize your service, EK.
But, I think the greatest thing is when able men and women are willing to serve their country, usually not knowing where it may lead. Gay folks who have served have had a much harder row to hoe simply because they have to keep their identity a secret.
Men and women who are able, regardless of sexual orientation, should be eligible for any job this country offers. America is not herself when we diminish any of our citizens because of a trait, unless convicted of a real crime.
The biggest difference is the chances of being outed and therefore discharged under DADT is greater under the non-combat roles. We don’t have e-mail or a lot of leave in the combat roles. Most of the stories of guys getting outed I’ve heard of have been under those circumstances.
The flip side of this would be how very very important those non-combat roles really are. I often joke that any grunt can point and shoot (except for Beej hopefully), but not many can speak Arabic.
Apparently, you were thinking about gays quite a lot. Otherwise DADT wouldn’t matter to you.
I think about civil rights most every day?
You?
at least in regard to your fellow soldiers.
I don’t now either.
Unless I am having sex with someone, I don’t care about anyone’s sexuality.
As a result, I have never heard a compelling reason in favor of DADT.
I’m gay and was a soldier. I’m pretty sure that qualifies me to care about DADT. I could be wrong though.
it’s quite common for pictures of a loved one to be carried into battle. In some cases it’s all the soldier has to tie them to their home at all. No one should be afraid to look at a photograph.
Now I know, a few moments of comfort for a weary soldier fighting for your right to post bullshit here is more than they deserve anyway, but if it keeps them thinking of your naked ass… well, isn’t it worth your peace of mind?
As far as I know. I can only speak to my experiences and then only in a general sorta way.
I would love to have had that comfort going into certain situations. When I was wounded, it would have made an enormous difference if I could have had something as simple as a picture of my partner with me in the hospital.
not making me feel badly so early in the morning. I don’t even know what to say that won’t come off as flip.
I’m very sorry for this ridiculous policy. Doubt it helps much, but there it is.
“Look at me, I’m still talking and you can’t shut me up.”
I have absolutely no idea what he meant. Enlighten me.
Neanderthal Man was a hoax
bj just called Buck “hard on Ken”
Thanks, I needed a laugh.
Which isn’t quite a phrase in the English language, but then again, BJ probably thinks secular society’s grammar rules are just another “hoax,” like evolution and global warming. So let’s help translate from BJ-ish into English: I think he meant “to[e] hard on Ken,” indicating that Ken has a foot fetish. Thanks to BJ for his diligent work keeping personal track of politicians’ sexual fetishes.
Please. I overlook your typos all the time.
Seems to me Bennet et al had to know how the Romanoff people would take it when he said that. He can’t be that stupid, can he?
Now whether you believe he did or not is irrelevant. From Bennet’s point of view he played by the rules, raised money from mostly individual donors and won the primary. Buck didn’t. Buck heavily relied on outside groups to fund his campaign. So that’s where Bennet was coming from.
Now from a PR and perception point of view. I certainly wouldn’t have said it. I don’t think he needs to actively court the Romanoff supporters but there’s also no need to push their buttons if you can avoid it. But that’s the catch, if he doesn’t agree with the Romanoff supporter he probably didn’t think about that line pertaining to himself.
At this point in the game, Bennet needs to be focused on independents or first time voters only. The base, IMHO, will turn out without Bennet actively going after them. I think Buck is doing plenty to energize the Dem base.
Remember that you’re also talking to a moderate Dem.
meaning under $200.
Revisionist history won’t work.
Since I have been, and continue to be, one of Bennet’s supporters and donors…you’re preaching to the choir.
n/t
is that Buck’s ads are disingenuous. I have to give his advertising people a lot of credit — they’re good ads — they’re just full of lies. How can they, in good conscience, make a tea-partier like Ken Buck look like a moderate and then sleep at night? I just don’t get it. Does anyone have morals anymore? Anyone?
I love how you’re just SHOCKED that a political ad would fudge the truth a little to score political points or create a narrative. Are you naive enough to think that Democrats would never do it? Romanoff did it and even Bennet does it. It’s how this whole political “game” is played.
I find it amusing that everyone is fine with their guy doing it but outraged when their opponent has the nerve to do the same thing. These are the same people who have two different definitions for “negative” ad. Give it a rest.
When I hear people start preaching about morality it sets my teeth on edge. Perhaps you should join the Christian Coalition since you’re so big on moral superiority.
and I don’t agree Bennet has done this. The only time his ads exaggerated, regarding Romanoff and Social Security, his own supporters called him out on it (including me) and the ad was removed. Otherwise, all of the fact-checks on his ads have supported everything.
Ken Buck believes extreme far-right things. He would like to take away reproductive rights from 51% of the US population. He wants to keep bigoted policies in place against members of the GLBTQ community. He is against Social Security in principle, as well as the government helping struggling families sending their kids to college.
And his ad campaign deliberately makes him look moderate. Emerald — do you honestly think that is ethical? I don’t.
I work hard for candidates I believe in. I also call them out when they need it. Good candidates with integrity don’t mind that. Michael Bennet is a class act.
But I am under no delusion about the state of politics and politicking in this era. You’re speaking about Bennet specifically but I’m talking Democrats in general as well as Bennet specifically. My point is that I have yet to see a politician not “exaggerate” or spin the facts to their favor. It becomes even more widespread in the general.
I agree with you about Buck and his extreme positions. My point has nothing to do with Buck’s positions though.
I don’t pretend to be the arbiter on what is moral or ethical when it comes to politics. In order to pass that kind of judgment you would need an insight into a politician’s intent.
is just that I think Buck’s ads are not just a little exaggerating or misleading. I think they completely distort his history and character. He is a tea party candidate. He has extreme views. On the right-left continuum, he is far right, not in the middle. Pretending to be in the middle is a lie.
It, by definition, can’t be a truth or lie.
Look, if you randomly decide what out of my beliefs you want to analyse, you may come out with a spot for me on the right, pick another and it may be on the left, pick another and I might be dead on center. Hell, pick a certain set and I become so left, I’m nearly right. Or does it depend on who you’re comparing to?
Obviously. Your list isn’t everyone else’s. That’s why it’s opinion.
Stating someone is an unethical liar is not so much. Work on that.
My opinion is that Buck is pretty far right on what I would consider important. It’s also my opinion that being a good politician, especially this year, means running as far to whichever side in the primary and running back to center for the general. Frankly, I don’t think Buck is an actual tea bagger (not calling him moderate by any means, just saying there was a pretty substantial shift). That was the only way to win the primary.
And Bennet did it too (both the slide left and the general run to the center). Romanoff too, but Dems are thinking in terms of who’s more likely to win the general (both MB and AR played left pretty well). Same as Norton, but the GOP isn’t thinking like that and she didn’t do as well right as Buck.
OK? So STFU and get over it. It’s good advice!
n/t
is just that I think Buck’s ads are not just a little exaggerating or misleading. I think they completely distort his history and character. He is a tea party candidate. He has extreme views. On the right-left continuum, he is far right, not in the middle. Pretending to be in the middle is a lie.
admits he is on the far right. Sirota would admit to being on the far left. Bennet admits he is moderate-left (or as he has said since day one — a practical Democrat). I wouldn’t lie and say I was a moderate either, I am left of Bennet, but not as left as Sirota. If I said I was moderate, it would be a lie.
Buck is no moderate. His ads are lies.
What rock are you living under?
Did Buck say the FAIR tax was better than the income tax?
P.S. I already know the answer.
Every one has own right but it should not affect public relations
as well as diversity challenged.
I disagree with Buck so:
1) I will post lies about him,(disciplined by Colorado state bar) and
2) I will call him a racist and sexist,
because I am not smart enough to engage him on the issues.
You need to get a more nuanced playbook.
I understand Bennet is coming out with one shorly.
but instead use sarcasm by referring to him as a “genius” or imply that he’s not smart enough to deflect.
So, I wonder why you’re so quick to deflect away from Mr. Buck’s constant and willful choice of inflammatory language?
What have you found inflammatory? That he is pro-life? Doesn’t agree with the repeal of Clinton’s don’t ask, don’t tell?
Then there was his “high heels” comment.
But I am sure those were completely reasonable statements to make. Nothing inflammatory whatsoever.
Now had a Dem said the same thing, well that’s different.
It’s common knowledge that he was cited for ethical violations.
He did waste 150k of Weld County taxpayer’s money fighting a case up to the court in which he was found to violate the rights of American citizens in seizing tax records unconstitutionally.
How would feel H-MAN if a rogue DA seized your tax records?
How about medical records?
How about any of your civil rights?
I forgot, you advocate for civil rights only for as “Animal Farm” the animals that are more equal than others.
The Norton campaign has information on this.
Wikipedia cites
Buck’s previous ethics lapses at the U.S. attorney’s office also resurfaced in the primary
Making reference to Buck’s mandatory ethics classes, Norton argued that she “”didn’t need an ethics class to know what’s right. … Ken broke the rules, and the facts speak for themselves.” After Buck’s former supervisor, U.S. Attorney John Suthers, endorsed Norton, and the Colorado Democratic Party Chair called for Buck’s resignation from his Weld County post because of his “career by bypassing justice and ethics to reward political allies and campaign contributors,” Weld made a radio appearance to place “this story out in the open.”
So it wasn’t Colorado, it was a federal rebuke.
You are very right H-MAN.
I should realize that when Mr.Buck is asked about ethics violations his response is the same as many defendants
“State or Federal?”
Vincent Carroll’s column criticizes Jane Norton’s ad about Ken Buck’s ethical problems. As a retired FBI agent, I believe that Buck’s conduct was very serious and merits a full discussion.
Buck’s disclosure of confidential deliberations to the defense was unequivocally wrong and perhaps politically calculated. As an experienced prosecutor, Buck knew better than to disclose sensitive information to a defense attorney. His leaks helped cause a 37-count felony indictment to be downgraded to a single misdemeanor conviction, an unusual outcome for such serious charges.
Not only did he render meaningless the hard work of the case agents, but Buck’s actions impugned the integrity of the U.S. attorney and the prosecutors assigned to the case.
U.S. Attorney John Suthers understood the gravity of Buck’s offense and allowed him to resign voluntarily. If Carroll doesn’t recognize the ethical problem, he should at least acknowledge that Buck’s behavior is worthy of discussion. Jane Norton must make the effort now because the Democrats won’t hesitate to make Buck’s ethics a central campaign theme should he win the Republican Senate nomination.
John Mencer, Littleton
Everything Buck does indicates he is sexist and homophobic, and now this “homogenous” comment raises a question about who else he hates.
see comment to Ray above.
But if you want to try to throw false labels around, hoping some will stick, while Buck focuses on the issues facing Colorado, be my guest.
I’d be happy to see someone blast Buck for what he actually said: that he favors sexual orientation discrimination.
But Buck said nothing indicating he wants the military to discriminate based on race, religion, etc. Implying he did is sleazy and stupid.
H, it’s official: my side has its own Libertad, and her name is Nancy Cronk. But don’t worry, I don’t think her Cronking of Buck is going to persuade anyone.
And Nancy, because I’m disagreeing with you stridently, you definitely should go whine and cry to Pols that they should suspend me. That stunt made us all so very impressed with you.
I am past trying to engage someone about made up stuff. There are things to have reasonable arguments on. Making fun of people’s religious beliefs or concentration camp slurs to pro-life people are not worthy of discussion.
… cheapens actual claims of racism.
Read my posts. I ask questions, based on Buck’s own inflammatory statements and word-choices. It is up to Buck and his tea-party followers to prove or dis-prove.
but adding a big douchey question mark by everything does not make it a fact until disproven. If you want to say something, and be taken seriously, try finding some facts, spelling those facts correctly, and own the conclusion you draw from them.
See: “Is nancycronk and idiot racist????”
Now disprove that with links. Kind of obnoxious, right?
by Buck’s defenders, not one of them has addressed the real issue, and provided a rational explanation for Buck’s bizarre and troubling word choice.
I read some guy named David’s time line and can’t understand what your point is. I think, and stop me if this is too radical, that Buck is saying that he doesn’t think DADT should be repealed because he thinks everyone in the military should be straight or faking straight.
Do you not know what the word means, or do you have no sense of context?
I mean, I agree that Buck’s ideology here is stupid (really stupid), but am not sure why you think it applies to every aspect military life. Frankly, if you want to do that, one could argue that things like freedom of speech are regularly thrown to the curb for the appearance that the entire military wholeheartedly supports a war/operation because of why the government said so. Do you know what happens if a soldier is caught burning an American flag, for instance? Or maybe you just don’t agree that the military should look like they are fighting for the same cause? I’m sure that would play really well trust wise in an already tough situation. Sometimes, and this goes for anyone, it’s best to fake unity. Again, I’m not sure why requiring all men to be straight and all women to be gay is going to help either, but it’s not my policy.
See how that works both ways? Context is a bitch, sure, but other words exist in thought for a reason.
You really can’t find something more legitimate to complain about? Maybe you aren’t paying enough attention. Or are looking so hard for something stupid, you’ve missed nearly every other word that’s come out of this idiot’s mouth. Ken Buck; Google it.
with soldier’s sexual preferences? You’re making no sense, droll.
The whole point of having a military is to fight for the constitution, our democracy, and our individual liberties. In other words, they are fighting for each individual’s right to be DIFFERENT. For Ken Buck and the rest of the far-right wing to re-define liberty to mean some nationalistic mono-religious, mono-sexual, monocultural goal is ridiculous. It is the antithesis of the values this country was based on. By stating that the military should be “homogenous”, he is going against the very principles they are supposed to be fighting for.
Restricting freedoms to “fight for freedom” is like screwing for virginity. Makes no sense whatsoever.
you just can’t read.
The two things (sexual preference and ideology) aren’t related. That’s my point with your little rant based on a fairly straight forward answer to a simple question.
You can’t decide context is meaningless and then whine when you don’t like that I’ve done it with your message. Do you see now?
Don’t worry, I know you don’t.
Are you and bjwilson83 the same person? Because you two are the only ones I have this problem with.
I know, I know, another baseless personal attack against poor nancycronk. 🙁 Poor thing!
HIs actions at swift speak for themselves.
Many USA citizens were detained for being Latino.
Tax Records were seized unconstitutionally of US citizens for having Latino names.
I’ve called him culturally challenged. That’s different from a bigot.
He is culturally challenged and has propagated discrimination.
If you don’t like it, then take it up with the Colorado Supreme Court
You keep perpetuating this lie, H-man. Cut it out.
That didn’t happen. Talk about making stuff up.
Defend the homophobic, mysogynist candidate — knock yourself out.
Anyway, in this case it can also be backed up. By nearly ever comment you make. You make it so easy.
And you are so right; thinking you are full of shit is the same as wanting to leg fuck Buck. raymond is right, pick on Buck for what he actually said or you are just as bad as the GOP loving fiction writers.
Accept it and move on. Or change. Your choice.
You lied in suggecting that I’m trying to:
Um. no; I’d quite clearly supported “blast[ing] Buck” on that issue:
My main qualm with you, and it’s a big one, was that you sleazily implied Buck was saying something racist with no basis. Now you just as dishonestly say I’m trying to “defend the homophobic” Buck.
You are, hands down, the most dishonest poster on Pols. Fortunately, you’re not smart enough to pull off a persuasive or subtle lie, so I’m fine, thanks.
Oh, and where I said you whined and cried to Pols about H-Man blasting you: either you whined to Pols and got him suspended, or you didn’t call off Pols when they declared they’re suspending someone to protect you against having your feelings hurt. So yes, I view you as a whiner who, unlike 99% of us here, can’t take the heat of anonymous criticism in the blogosphere.
In short, you are a liar (about Buck, and about me), a sleaze peddler (about Buck), and a whiner when called on your BS (in happily letting Pols suspend someone to protect your feelings). I’m sure you have redeeming qualities of some sort, but none of them are on display on Pols; here, the equation pretty clearly is that you’re a wonderful mix of Libertad’s brain and Karl Rove’s morality.
They are anti-female.
Ken Buck used the word, “homogenous” — I didn’t. That same word was used to discriminate against African-Americans, Asians and Jews in many contexts in many times throughout recent American history. It was also used when people were trying to keep women out of the military. Hate someone? (Anyone.) Play the “homogenous” card. “But we want them all to look/eat/sleep/pray/think/wear-clothes-like/use-the-bathroom-the-same-way” or the military/school/country club won’t be “homogenous”.
If anyone brought up racism, it’s Ken Buck.
Here’s an example of your “logic”:
Nancy Cronk used the word “radical” to describe Ken Buck. From the 1910s to present , fascists have used that word to attack Jews and African-Americans with liberal views. So Nancy Cronk seems to be a racist and anti-semite, because she’s using a word racists and anti-semites have used.
This would be very stupid logic; the fact that you criticize someone with the same word racists used doesn’t make you a racist. Identically, you have no basis for saying that because Buck used the word “homogenous” to defend his anti-gay views, he’s a racist too.
I really don’t think she knew what the word meant and only took in the “homo” part. Then she promptly flew off the handle because she was so offended at the slur and has been trying to explain ever since without admitting it.
I know it sounds like I’m making a joke here, but that’s really what I think at this point.
I would be interested in knowing what Buck’s ‘homogenous’ military would look like. Buck’s comments, along with the ridiculous ‘gay men are dangerous in the showers’ comment in another post from yesterday, just make me sad – sad for my closeted military friends and sad for our culture. I’d prefer a military that reflects the best in our society.
I’m willing to accept, and totally disagree with, his religious argument against abortion. Buck’s stance on DADT are – and civil rights for all Americans – are cruel, unnecessary and will eventually show that he is on the wrong side of history.
that is me – says Buck and the whole teabagging crowd who thinks the military should be homo-genus is really showing ignorance and stupidity. Why? Perhaps they never served so they have no idea what they are talking about?
If you were in the military you marched with, ate with, slept with and swore with someone who was a member of the LGBT community. No guesses. A lot of us were in there to prove our manhood, just as we were taught by those just like buck and o’donnell and palin.
Only manly men can be in the military. Yup, and only sane people can be teabaggers.
What did I ever do to you? Who the hell are you?
And ask Pols — I never complained about H-man or anyone else. When people like you and H-man would rather name-call then speak your truth, I ignore you. You are not worth my time.
Of course I’m not Nancy Cronk, but let me learn you something else, Nancy: nobody ever got anywhere on this blog demanding to know someone else’s identity. And by the way, my real name is “Mike Miles.” Or maybe it’s not; I suppose you’ll have to keep shaking your fist in the air demanding to know my name (which, by the way, is “Ben Affleck”).
I follow the rules. I have little respect for opinions that people refuse to own, however.
(that I had something to do with H-man being reprimanded) when you hide behind a fictitious name. You can cowardly say any accusation you want and not have to take responsibility for any of it.
Why not blame me for Katrina? The Tsunami? Stock market troubles? Bird Flu? Swine Flu? BJ and Marilou?
As the rights have given to military they may not use it wrongly.Timeshare Exit Solution