At Least It’s Not Your Car Lot

UPDATE: According to a photo at 9NEWS, the sign’s finished, with the large yellow rectangle containing “BIRTH CERTIFICATE.” Classy, especially against the backdrop of pre-owned autos.

Westword, oh boy:

So… whaddya think? Is this billboard, on display outside Wolf Interstate Leasing & Sales, 4855 Miller Street in Wheat Ridge, a bold (and legitimate) statement of displeasure with the Obama administration that has the guts to link the shootings in Fort Hood, Texas, with Islamoterrorism? Or is it an offensive throwback to the Little Black Sambo imagery that typified race baiting for far too much of the 20th century?

President or Jihad? We’re trying to act surprised by this, but we’ve seen enough Tea Party footage to know better. This is the same billboard, after all, that said “Where’s the Birth Certificate” for several weeks prior to this iteration of hate.

If you have something to say about this that you’d like to communicate directly, go nuts:

Wolf Interstate and Sales



190 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Steve Harvey says:

    that we’re our own worst enemy. And by “we,” I mean “they.”

  2. Ellie says:

    I hate this sort of thing and hate isn’t a word I use loosely.  I have a deep and abiding dislike for people (groups) that perpetrate bigotry and their brand of political activism. They don’t believe in a true democracy but take full advantage of their constitutional rights of free speech to advocate their warped beliefs.

  3. Laughing Boy says:


    • BlueCat says:

      I hadn’t scrolled all the way down when I lumped you with those who would think this is peachy.  Very happy to be so wrong.  

    • BICora says:

      LB, do you think the guys who bought this billboard think they are making our country better by putting this up?

      I was driving around Colorado last Spring and Summer  and I saw a lot of handmade but same-worded signs about Ritter.  I thought they were dumb and not likely to alter anyone’s thinking nor motivate any new activists, but I thought that the writer and the people who put them up were sincere in their effort.  They oppose Ritter- they think their signs will help motivate voters to get rid of him.

      The motivation behind this seems….less sincere.

      • Laughing Boy says:

        They’re dumbasses.  THis is not a Republican deal, it’s a wacko birther deal, and this douche went one step farther with the turban caricature and the invocation of Ft. Hood.

        SOme signs are clever and funny.  Most, actually.  But every rally has a couple of idiots with signs that don’t represent the majority of the rally.

        • RedGreenRedGreen says:

          Not to mention the offensive, racist caricature without the turban.

          The point is, this isn’t one sign in a sea of thousands at a rally, it’s a billboard off a highway. It makes Obama critics look small-minded, hysterical and racist to boot. It undermines legitimate criticism of Obama by making his critics look like idiots and makes the great, non-ideological middle less likely to take take the critics seriously.  

          • Laughing Boy says:

            It makes that one particular Obama critic look small minded.

            It doesn’t detract from the millions and millions of people that don’t like his policies and could give a crap about birth certificates and the color of his skin.

            Nice try, though.

            • ClubTwitty says:

              I wonder if the major league dimwit at Wolf Interstate Leasing & Sales in Wheat Ridge who put up this billboard understands that all he does – other than humiliate himself – is provide fodder for the Left to smear  everyone who is involved in legitimate and substantive opposition to this administration?

              Judging from the level of craft and brainpower involved in this project, I will just assume that’s not the case.

        • BICora says:

          goes to trying to figure out how to engage this guy.

          I listened to Sirota talk to him- can’t really call it an interview.

          He’s a loon- but is he sincere? Or does he know he’s just baiting and inflaming a public reaction? It could be both- but it doens’t seem like it.

          How do we get the loons into the public forum? Or should we bother?

  4. themonk77 says:

    Somedays I have hope that we as a society are above this sort of thing.  Other days, I drink my coffee, smoke my cigarette and shake my head a lot.  Must be the source of my headaches.

  5. Middle of the Road says:


  6. sxp151 says:

    Oh, and from the Sambo caricatures to blaming the President for Fort Hood before all the blood is even cold, that’s some pretty racist crazy shit…

    Except for the balloon. Everyone knows you can’t stay mad when there are balloon involved.  

  7. caroman says:

    Wolf Interstate and Sales


    Let them know how you feel.  I did, and I feel a lot better.

  8. dwyer says:

    I am trying to get a handle on exactly where this business is.

    I believe it is close to I-70 and may be visible from the hwy… is not that far from the boyles (die fueher)birther billboard.

    This is a nation which believes in free speech, fundamentally.

    The answer to free speech with which one disagrees is simply more free speech…..

    So I am open to any suggestions on how best to combat this….for those of us w/o funds to post another billboard..

    Scratch Westword….they are in bed with boyles…for shame, patty..

  9. ClubTwitty says:

    with that deficit

  10. Middle of the Road says:

    I did feel quite bad for the poor guy answering the phone. This isn’t his doing and it certainly sucks to be the guy cleaning up the owner’s mess. He didn’t sound like he approved of it, either.

    The owner, by the way, is nowhere to be found or contacted. The guy that answered the phone mentioned that he was forwarding every single email they got on this to the owner so keep it up.

    Sounds like they have actually been getting a ton of calls and emails on this–I think he put it this way, “This has been a bad day.”

    I’m betting money this is on Keith O’s show tonight. Any takers? Lord.  

  11. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    This isn’t political discourse, this is just spewing filth.

  12. Arvadonian says:

    Suggestion folks who are calling:  Use the 877 number that is visible in the KOS photo.  It is toll free and will make Wolf pay for the call!


  13. CaninesCanines says:

    “President or Jihad?…Prove It!”

    That’s like asking regarding Bill Ritter, “Is he the Governor or a War?…Justify your answer!”

    A tenuous grip on language, as well as reality.

  14. Karinthy says:

       Even complete and total morons get to speak their mind, or something like it.

  15. Stagarite says:

    There’s allot of talk in Wheat Ridge about how Wolf Interstate Leasing & Sales vehicles are all redneck preowned. I don’t know if this is the case or not, but it raises the issue of meth predecessor chemicals in the trunks and crabs in the back seats. I’m not saying these allegations are true. Personally, I don’t believe any of it. (Some of my best friends are rednecks.) Nonetheless, there is allot of talk out there, and if Mr. Wolf values his business, then he needs to get out in front of his meth and crabs problem.

  16. Alison says:

    Any legitimate gripe or concern this guy had was totally undermind by this nonsensical display. It does not even make sense. What is with the cartoon guy on the right, and what does Fort Hood have to do with any of it? Are we now accusing President Obama of the tragedy at Fort Hood?

    I am a proud Republican and tenacious supporter of upholding one’s rights to free speech and protest, but this just goes too far!  

    • Stagarite says:

      (1) It highlights the GOP’s base problem.

      (2) It alienates moderates.

      (3) It makes it easier for Dems to win elections.

      As a citizen, however, I’m not so thrilled.

      Some time ago the GOP had a choice about how it would use language: (a) to motivate behavior or (b) to represent ascertainable reality. The choice was (a), and the GOP became a party of salesmen, not caring whether or not what they said was true so long as it closed the deal. The problem now–illustrated by Mr. Wolf (not coincidentally a car salesman)–is that the Republican Party is stuck inside its own house of mirrors. The base likes it there and turn on any responsible party member who tries to lead them out. Thus, the Republicans are incapable even of functioning as a responsible minority party. The GOP owes this much to society, but, due to its own narcissism, it’s not living up to that obligation.

      • guesswho says:

        The billboard should have shown the different bows to foreign heads of state that Obama has made.  None really to our allies as he continues his world tour to say how sorry America is for being great.

        • Steve Harvey says:

          it’s not that we’re apologizing for being “great,” but rather for being like all of the other thugs we’ve condemned over the years (literally, in the case of prosecuting Japanese officers for waterboarding in the wake of WWII, but then defending the practice when we found it convenient to use).

          “Greatness” requires the capacity for self-evaluation and correction. We owe the world an apology for having failed to exercise that aspect of greatness too often, for too long.

          “Greatness” requires a commitment to humanity over and above a commitment to parochial self-interest. We owe the world an apology for claiming such greatness primarily as a tool for failing to exercise it.

          “Greatness” requires mutual respect and accommodation. We owe the world an apology for claiming an “exceptionalism” that we so glaringly lack, simultaneously acting in less enlightened ways than many of our fellow developed nations, and claiming to have achieved a perfection that they have failed to achieve.

          “Greatness” requires humility, humanity, boundless aspiration for doing good, recognition of the human frailties that undermine such aspiration, and a commitment to working hard at overcoming those frailties, as individuals and as a society. America owes the world an apology for, while crowing about our greatness, exhibiting arrogance, aggression, a boundless willingness to rationalize doing harm to others, and disinclination to recognize our own human frailties, and a widespread indifference to the challenge of overcoming them. All while exercising incomparable power in the world, often in the form of violent force that kills tens of thousands of innocent people.

          You’re right, though, that we don’t have to apologize. We can just come clean instead, and admit that we are a nation like other nations, pursuing our self-interest by all means possible, and admitting that our claims to greatness have become a mockery of our squandered potential to do good in the world. A thug doesn’t have to apologize unless he wants to be something other than a thug.

          Or, we can start trying to live up to what we claim to be.

          I voted for the latter in 2008. Apparently, you didn’t.

        • ClubTwitty says:

          with the Saudi prince.  Nothing says ‘robust foreign policy’ like walking hand and hand with a Wahhabist…

        • ClubTwitty says:

          They ARE NOT our allies–Remember December 7, 1941!!

        • SSG_Dan says:

          Because a commissioned officer of the US Military understands status and respect?

          The STFU –

          US admiral defends Obama’s Japan bow

          “The former top commander of US troops in Asia on Thursday strongly defended President Barack Obama against critics of his bow to Japan’s Emperor Akihito, calling it a gesture of respect.

          “Admiral Timothy Keating, who retired last month when he ended his stint as head of the Honolulu-based US Pacific Command, said he did not hesitate to bow when Akihito and Empress Michiko visited Hawaii in July.

          “That’s what one does when one sees the emperor of Japan. I don’t care if it’s the president of the United States or the commander of 325,000 Americans,” Keating told a forum at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.”

        • BlueCat says:

          pictures of Nixon and other Presidents bowing and GW holding hands with and kissing various Saudi Princes. You know.  The Princes of the country that produced the overwhelming majority of 9/11 terrorists along with almost all the funding for El Qaeda and the extremist religious schools all over the Muslim world that produce the terrorist foot soldiers and suicide bombers?  And Japan is an ally, by the way.  I’ll guess,guesswho:  Maroon?

        • Stagarite says:

          …the GOP has a base problem. The followers are stuck inside the echo chamber and are getting kookier by the day. My fondest wish is that statewide Republican candidates are forced to parrot the birther-deather-Islamist stuff and the Dems reprise it in the general–maybe with coo-coo clock sound effects.

    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

      I am a proud Republican and tenacious supporter of upholding one’s rights to free speech and protest, but this just goes too far!

      It’s easy to support free speech you don’t mind too much. It’s the speech where you want to stand up and punch someone in the mouth that requires our first amendment.

      I find what he said heinous, but I totally defend his right to say it.

      • Steve Harvey says:

        It’s not a free speech issue. No one here, as far as I can tell, is proposing any government censorship of this speech.

        But free speech does not mean that the speaker must be protected from all consequences of his speech. If I own a business, and viciously insult my customers as they walk through the door, my right to free speech does not mean that the government will come in and force those would-be customers to go ahead and buy whatever it is they were going to buy before I insulted them.

        Free speech is primarily a negative freedom: It is protected against government intrusion, not protected with government guarantees against all other social forces which might constrain it. I am content to propose that we ensure that “other social forces” constrain this speech, not enlist the government in that task.

        • RedGreenRedGreen says:

          David’s right to take on straw men, damnit!

        • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

          The first half of the sentence is “I am a proud Republican and tenacious supporter of upholding one’s rights to free speech and protest” and it then concludes with “but this just goes too far!”

          I don’t see how else to read this than this is too extreme to be protected. If you see how it didn’t say that, I’m open to why you think so.

          • Jambalaya says:

            How about the way everyone else read it?

            “Even though I support the right to free speech, this speech is deplorable and worthy of censure.”  I.e., the speech should be roundly condemned.  

            Instead of reading it that way, you jumped onto the silly flag-waving bandwagon of “Free speech, rah, rah, rah!”  As if gov’t suppression or punishment of speech was at issue, which it clearly was not.

            • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

              I just disagreed with a sentence of one person’s opinion where the first half of the sentence brought up the right to free speech, and the second half of the sentence said that this was too far [for that right].

              You can read it how you wish, but I see it as a pretty clear statement. Very different from what you wrote as your rewording of it.

              • Jambalaya says:

                …(which you now concede) then your first comment makes even less sense

                • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

                  I’m not going to play at that.

                  • BlueCat says:

                    You got yourself into a corner on this and it’s you who are being willfully obtuse.

                    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

                      I never claimed that this was an issue of government suppression of free speech. I just called out a person who in the first half of the sentence called out her support of free speech, and in the second half of the sentence said that this expression went “too far.”

                      My point, which I think is legit, is that if she truly supports free speech, then that support extends to odious speech like this billboard.

                    • Jambalaya says:

                      You initially spoke of the right to free speech and defending it because it deserved protection.  Defense and protection from WHAT, exactly?  You conceded that gov’t action was not at issue.  So the ONLY thing at issue was the criticism of private persons who did not like the speech.  You think the right to free speech includes protection against criticism from private individuals?  People have a right to speak without private criticism of the speech?  Such a view of the right to free speech is unprecedented, illogical and without bounds.

          • Colorado PolsColorado Pols says:

            Not advocating that they not be allowed to say it.

            • Steve Harvey says:

              There are two separate statements, separated by “but”: That he believes in free speech, BUT that this goes too far. That can be read to mean either that protection of free speech shouldn’t extend to this speech, or that this exercise of free speech shouldn’t be honored by those who are exposed to it.

              David read it one way, and felt compelled to comment. Others read it another way, and felt compelled to rebuke David. Now, kiss and make up.

              • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

                this exercise of free speech shouldn’t be honored by those who are exposed to it.

                The English language is inexact so I won’t say how I interpret it but wait for you to clarify.

                To speak to the comment by pols, I have trouble understanding how the second half of the sentence did not qualify the first half. To be what you say wouldn’t the wording then be of the form:

                I am a proud Republican and tenacious supporter of upholding one’s rights to free speech and protest, but this is disgusting.

                It’s the “goes too far” as a modifier that I think makes it read a specific way.

                • Steve Harvey says:

                  People often conflate the right to free speech with the tolerance of other’s speech. The two interpretations of the remark could be either what I agree with you to be the more literal reading (that he sees this as case that does not deserve free speech protection, and thus can and should be censored by the government), or the more likely if also slightly more sloppy interpretation, that he believes in free speech, but believes that this exercise of is “intolerable” (by the public). The use of “but” is misleading, but doesn’t completely forclose the second interpretation, since the censoring power of public outrage is not utterly dissimilar from the censoring power of government.

                  So, “I believe in free speech,” i.e., “I believe that we should not employ our government to prevent people from speaking freely;” “but this just goes too far,” i.e., “I think that this is a case in which we should employ informal outrage that accomplishes what we prohibit the government from accomplishing on our behalf.”

                • Steve Harvey says:

                  “this just goes too far” can be taken to mean that this goes too far in the exercise of one’s undisputed right, and should be condemned by all decent people for doing so.

                  As in, “sure, you have the right to say what you like, but calling someone names just goes too far!” It’s not a suggestion to deny the object of rebuke the right they were exercising, but a way of condemning how they chose to exercise that right.

  17. Stagarite says:

    Apparently, from the plain language of his sign, Mr. Wolf is challenging anyone in the the world to prove the proposition, “Barak Obama is President (P) or he is a jihadist (J).” In symbolic logic, this proposition can be stated as: (Px v Jx). This proposition is an example of inclusive disjunction, and would be true if either one or both of the disjuncts were true. Given that Px (“Obama is president.”) is true, the whole expression is true regardless of the status of Jx. Px is, of course, true: Photobucket

    Therefore, Px v Jx is true regardless of whether or not the president is a jihadist. Perhaps Mr. Wolf would like to prove Jx. This, however, is a separate question with the burden of proof falling on Mr. Wolf.

  18. greengrrl says:

    Not sure it was a good idea wasting my time talking to a complete wacko. I think he is delighted with the attention.

  19. Early WormEarly Worm says:

    She is the individual doing business as Wolf’s Interstate Leasing & Sales according to the Sec of State.  She took over the name in December 08 from Phillip Wolf and allowed the name to expire on Nov. 1 09.  

  20. Born with red blood says:

    As a Republican, this is embarrassing.  I hate this, and if the Republican party is going to make this their platform, I’m registering Libertarian.

    • Pam Bennett says:

      This evening a good friend of mine who was a Repub told me she finally gave up on her party. She is now a proud Libertarian party member.  She finally acknowledged that the R party is not what it used to be.

    • Laughing Boy says:

      Where is the association with Republicans? There isn’t any.  At all.  

      This is more like the Alex Jones idiot brigade.

      • Born with red blood says:

        I’m so sick of this birth certificate conspiracy theory that runs in the Republican circles recently.  It is so stupid and doesn’t help the party at all.  I just don’t want to be associated with this crowd.  Let’s focus on the issues that matter.

  21. cologeek says:

    Totally tasteless and nonsensical.  You have an attempt to blame the Ft. Hood attack on President Obama, combined with an obvious racist image.  I can’t imagine anyone with two working brain cells to rub together thinking that this is the way to go if you oppose the Presidents policies.  Hopefully the phone lines for this business will melt from the calls.

  22. sxp151 says:

    Glad to see nobody’s defending this. You guys are reasonable after all. 🙂

  23. mtnhigh says:

    So hard sometimes to defend the first amendment…

  24. droll says:

    He wants a birth certificate to prove someone’s not Muslim?  Did I miss the part of the Constitution that prohibits non-Christians from being President?

    It does almost make the Ft. Hood reference make sense.  Our President (I’m sure Obama won the election, still unclear on the “?”) is in a holy war… with himself?  Take that, bitches!

    Now I’m wondering how much this guy spent to not make any kind of sense.  At the very least, he could’ve thought out his position before having the billboard made.

    • Laughing Boy says:

      The imagery and the Ft. Hood part of the billboard make it completely offensive, though.

      What does he think is going to be on the birth certificate?  A “Jihad” designation?  

      Boy, would that ever be embarrassing to Obama!

    • OneEyedOwl says:

      don’t think through any of their positions. They are kneejerk reactionaries, the type of people who are easily swayed and manipulated by the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and Palin.  

  25. CrazyOkie says:

    I called his phone number and voice my opinion of his tasteless billboard – his response was:  “you are in the minority – thanks for calling”.  And, then he hung up.  I think he deserves a few more phone calls…  

    • Steve Harvey says:

      and the “general manager” tried to engage me in his insane argument, though Obama’s birth certificate has been produced (in June of 2008), authenticated, and further verified by the Hawaiian Health Director, who has the original and copies on file.

      • BICora says:

        on thw website?

        Is it one of the Maeses?  Are they any relation to the guy running for guv?  Are they supporting him?

        • Steve Harvey says:

          The contact links were all for sales people and “consignment specialists.” There’s no link (or name given) for the general manager (whose name is “Wayne,” as I discovered in one of my phone calls).

          Until you pointed it out, I didn’t make the connection between the two salespeople of that name, and the gubernatorial candidate. Someone might want to look into that….

          • Laughing Boy says:

            Has anyone checked into anyone with the last name of Hasan?


            Please get real, people.

            • Steve Harvey says:

              It was bad form to indulge in any speculation without some evidence, and the only assumption to be made unless and until there is evidence to the contrary is that the similarity of names is coincidental. For the record, my response to the suggestion had nothing to do with Maes’s party affiliation, nor with any interest in him one way or the other: It was more like, “yeah, you’re right, I wonder if there’s a connection.”

              But you overmilked a reasonable point by suggesting that wondering if there’s a connection between two people who share a fairly uncommon last name with no particular ethnic overtone is similar to wondering if there’s a connection between two people who share a very common last name within a particular ethnicity, in a context and social climate in which the unfortunate habit of disparaging all members of that ethnicity is already evident.

              • droll says:

                but this is just silly.  Of course you were wondering about the connection because of party affiliation.  Don’t worry, I don’t think it matters, there’s actually a dumber part to this.

                Why would it matter if there were a connection?  Let’s say this guy is Maes’ cousin, for example.  Do you automatically believe everything your family members do?  My grandmother’s third husband thought that whites and blacks shouldn’t have children because cats and dogs don’t mix, thereby making said children “unnatural.”  In the unlikely event I ever run for office, will I need to denounce that?  (Frankly, I have the same problem I had then, where would you even start?)

                Also, this bothers me:

                It was more like, “yeah, you’re right, I wonder if there’s a connection.”

                Do you always post random thoughts with nothing behind them?  Are these all your posts, or only the ones you wish you hadn’t posted?

                • Steve Harvey says:

                  I responded to what someone else posted. I had neither raised the issue, nor had any independent interest in it. My response was that I hadn’t noticed the similarity of names before it was pointed out, and that someone might be interested in looking into it (meaning that I wasn’t interested in looking into it). I really don’t care one way or the other about Maes, and would be delighted to see him do extremely well in the Gubernatorial race, since, if anything, his success is more likely to contribute to Ritter’s than to the GOP’s. Once it was pointed out that it’s bad form to speculate on similarities of  names, I agreed in no uncertain terms that it is.

                  If, in hypothetical situation similar to this, evidence of such a connection did exist, it may or may not be relevant: It would depend on the nature of the connection, and whether the connection was active in the particular action that has drawn fire. But, we all agree, such speculation is not appropriate without evidence. I am only responding to your hypothetical that it could not matter even if it existed.

                  I stated the truth both about my own casual error in judgment when acknowledging someone else’s observation, and about my own mind-set when I made it. It’s just that simple.

                • Steve Harvey says:

                  comb through all of my thousands of posts to find all of the times that I’ve made personal attacks of any kind on any Republican candidate or office holder: The instances are very few and far between, and limited to the Shultheises and Renfroes of the world. Unlike most posters here, I’ve never said anything negative about Penry, Wadhams, McInnis, or just about any of the other Republican cast of characters discussed here. Your assumption that I am now lying about not having meant to personally target Maes in my response to someone else’s mention of his having the same name as two of the salespeople at Wolf’s Automotive runs counter not only to my stated word, but also to the evidence of my past behavior.

                  • droll says:

                    I’ve never murdered before, so I clearly didn’t this time.  That’s great.  Watching you flounder here makes me think you know you’re wrong and can’t bring yourself to admit it.

                    I’m not looking to engage you any more, I have to sleep tonight.  So let’s just say you’re absolutely right, everyone should be judged by their last names.  Hope that continues to serve you well.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      It was unkind of me to undermine your shallow posturing and your arbitrary belligerence. And it was downright evil of me to respond to someone else with “yes, you’re right, they have the same name, you might want to look into that,” and then to admit immediately upon having it pointed out that it was wrong to even entertain any speculation about it. I just do not know how I will ever live down the shame of my sin….


                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      You know I like you, and I respect you.

                      You’ve kind of fallen into your own trap here of being almost terroristically verbose when if you’d just said “Yeah, my bad.” instead of this:

                      For the record, my response to the suggestion had nothing to do with Maes’s party affiliation, nor with any interest in him one way or the other: It was more like, “yeah, you’re right, I wonder if there’s a connection.”

                      Which NOBODY buys.  Seriously.

                      Of course you were interested because of partisan reasons, no matter what you’re going to say in the soon-to-follow sixteen paragraphs.

                      Like I said, I mean that with love, I really do, but, hey, you fucked up.  So have I, so has every one on this site.  But maybe you should quit while you’re behind on this one.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      My bias was against those who would condone the display of that billboard, not against those who are members of the Republican Party. The person being prematurely associated with the billboard could have been Libertarian, Republican, Independent, or Democrat (as could occur in the case of a Dixiecrat, for instance), and it wouldn’t have mattered, as long as the association being made was plausible (i.e., not being made against someone who I already knew not to harbor such beliefs).

                      The fact that I clearly don’t make a habit of attacking Republican candidates and office holders is, in fact, relevant. I’m being told by you and Droll that the account of my own thoughts that I’m offering that is completely compatable with my past behavior is a lie, while the account of my thoughts that you are insisting upon that is completely incompatable with my past behavior is the truth. The only thing that puts me behind is the motivated and antagonistic hubris of others.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      that this is what I get for saying “You’re right, I was wrong.”

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      If you’d stopped at that, you’d have received nothing but praise.

                      But you went “Full Harvey”.

                      Dude, no biggie, though.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      If there’s an opening, whether a real or fabricated, then those here who are looking to score a shot will take advantage of it. Droll, clearly motivated by issues with me which had nothing to do with my post, fabricated an opening to give vent to those issues, and you took the cue to tag-team with a shot of your own. Period.

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      If there’s an opening, whether a real or fabricated, then those here who are looking to score a shot will take advantage of it.

                      Yes.  And you did exactly that when you said this:

                      Until you pointed it out, I didn’t make the connection between the two salespeople of that name, and the gubernatorial candidate. Someone might want to look into that….

                      Do you not see that?  

                      Why in the world would Droll want me on his team?  Nobody’s tag-teaming anyone, I just called both you and “BlCora” out on making an incredibly goofy partisan jump.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      is that I responded to someone mentioning an instance of people having the same name with a casual acknowledgement that I hadn’t noticed it until it was pointed out. I hadn’t given the post as much thought as you presume I did, and immediately admitted that it was poor judgment to entertain speculation about the similarity in names.

                      It was people sharing a fairly uncommon name, not the candidate’s party, which caught my attention when pointed out. The only tiny shred of truth in your presumptions about what was in my mind is that, had the candidate been an active Colorado Democrat, I would have considered any connection to Wolf Auto’s billboard unlikely simply on the basis of the fact that the birther fringe does not overlap with the Democratic Party. But that’s not the same as my intentionally taking a pot-shot at a Republican candidate.

                      In fact, I have criticized fellow Dems, here and elsewhere, quite frequently, for taking such pot-shots, and have not taken them myself, except toward individuals for their own unreputiated extreme views (not for their party affiliation). Never once have I attacked anyone just for being a Republican. Not once.

                      Now, you have one thoughtless comment of mine to exploit, in response to someone else’s observation, not reflected upon, fleeting and unassertive, immediately repudiated, and all of the sudden I’m taking pot-shots at Republicans for being Republicans??!!

                      You say that “that’s exactly what I did.” Then why did I renounce it right away? Why did I then post a response to Blcora further down the thread arguing that it’s not fair to the candidate to engage in such speculation, even knowing that damage to the candidate can be done by doing so?

                      You perceive what serves your purpose to perceive, rather than what is in most abundant evidence.

                      Once again, Bullshit.

                      (And you don’t have to be lovers to tag-team: you just need a common target. We allied with Stalin, remember?)

                    • RedGreenRedGreen says:

                      Maes isn’t that uncommon a name — there are at least six Dan Maeses in Denver alone and hundreds statewide sharing his last name.

                      Stop digging, Steve.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      You said that no one ever allies (implicitly, in this case; I’m not implying a formal alliance) with people they fundamentally disagree with or dislike. I pointed out that the United States allied with Stalin, whom we fundamentally disagreed with and disliked. In fact, it’s not just an analogy: It’s a disproof of your premise. Nothing nefarious about it.

                      Just for the record, I don’t think you’re Stalin. And (here it comes), I wasn’t trying to compare you to Stalin. Now, all I need is for the Troll Patrol to come along and tell me, as belligerently as possible, how I’m lying about that, and should stop digging….

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      With a history. What a surprise.

                      You’re all right, of course: Your assertions about my thoughts, utterly disproven by the very exchange that you’re using to support them, in direct contradiction of both all of the extrinsic evidence and what I myself say are my thoughts and motivations, are irrefutably correct. How silly of me. I give up.

                      I’m not even going to get into RedGreeen’s mastery of probability, or his confusion as to when a subjective assessment and when an objective truth is relevant…, that would just involve too much reason and accuracy for this exchange. Bye-bye now.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      (LB could), which is why they have criticism only for the person who repudiated it, not for one who stands by it. Just another day in Lilliput.

                    • RedGreenRedGreen says:

                      You’re right, of course: Your assertions about my thoughts, utterly disproven by the very exchange that you’re using to support them, in direct contradiction of both all of the extrinsic evidence and what I myself say are my thoughts and motivations, are irrefutably correct. How silly of me. I give up.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      like all other inferences, can be made when there is evidence to support them, and should not be made in disregard of abundant evidence that refutes them. It’s not that complicated. But, then again, neither are you.

                      Let me know when you figure out which end of the egg to crack.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      did it ever occur to you that being motivated purely by ill-will; in your most recent post, by the desire to get under someone else’s skin, to be as annoying as you can manage to be; isn’t particularly admirable or constructive? If I’m lucky, you’ll consider it a rhetorical question, but I can’t help but wonder what makes people like you tick. (Of course, I know that anonymity helps you to disassociate yourself from the behavior, but I also know that “RedGreen” is your identity to some extent, and so you’re not completely anonymous. Somehow, you take pride in being what everyone, including, I suspect, you, really understands merits no pride).

                    • RedGreenRedGreen says:

                      You must be such a treat on the doorsteps of voters, Harvey.

                      You blast others for inferring your thought processes but are free assuming you know what’s going on in my head — kudos! For all your talk about reframing the debate and moving politics to a higher plane, you sure sound like someone who simply likes to hear himself talk and frames every disagreement as a personal attack to boot. You can take pride in that!

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      It’s good to know that your persistent ill-will toward me isn’t motivated at all by ill-will. I understand now that it’s a quite reasonable further justification of your non-existent ill-will that I notice the ill-will that I have no right to infer exists. I’m glad we cleared that up. My bad.

                    • Middle of the Road says:

                      Oh you bad, bad boy, RG.  

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      shone me the error of my ways. I mean, imagining that anyone here is engaging in personal attacks or petty grudges! It’s just plain absurd. And reprehensible. And as good a justification for continuing to engage in personal attacks and petty grudges as any, not that any justification is needed. After all, what could be more laudable than harboring petty grudges and engaging in persistent personal attacks? Isn’t that the highest plane to which all good people strive?

                      Too bad, MOTR: I really liked your last sig line. I was hoping you would keep it until the election. This one’s not as good, but it will do.

                    • Middle of the Road says:

                      because you know we all live for your incessant replies and approval so please, do have the last word.

                      Or, just for yuks, you could go out and knock on a door, meet a voter, you know…campaign. :)(I think we both know which one you prefer engaging in though, don’t we?)

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      couldn’t exist without your (plural) incessant provocations. to which the replies are directed. Interestingly enough, the provocations, by definition, precede the replies, and so are the point at which the interaction is initiated. If you don’t want to interact with me, by all means feel free not to.

                      Your obsession with me is fascinating, but bizarre. Your repeated statements of “concern” with what I do in a sphere of my life that has nothing to do with you is just one more example of your determination to be as small, petty, and counterproductive as you are capable of being. That’s certainly your choice, and I’ve grown accustomed to it. But, as RedGreen’s sig-line says, it’s just another day in Lilliput where folks like you are concerned.

                    • Middle of the Road says:

                      What a surprise. 🙂

                      And considering my “incessant provocations” consisted of one comment to someone else prompts you to start frothing at your keyboard, racing to reply to someone who isn’t even commenting to you, seems to indicate that the only person obsessed here is you.

                      Bye now.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      Fact: I have never post anything about or to you that isn’t a reply to a post you made either in response to me or about me.

                      Fact: You frequently post responses to posts of mine that were neither to you nor about you, even outing me when I’ve posted anonymously (in response to someone else’s post, without any reference to you). And you frequently make comments about me in your posts to others.

                      There is nothng I would enjoy more than having nothing to do with you, and I have felt that way ever since you first conceived your petty little grudge. That’s what an obsession isn’t. You, on the other hand, refuse to leave me alone. That’s what an obsession is.

                      You keep justifying your obsession by accusing me of doing something that you do and that I don’t. It’s just too, too bizarre. Malice apparently leads to brain damage.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      Since you broke character long enough to speak, after a fashion, to the topic I raised, here are some responses:

                      “You blast others for inferring your thought processes but are free assuming you know what’s going on in my head — kudos!”

                      I blasted others for inferring my thoughts in contradiction to both what I stated them to be, and what the extrinsic evidence indicated them to be. In your case, you had not (and have not) stated what your thoughts were on the topic I addressed, and the extrinsic evidence strongly (I could almost say irrefutably) supported my conclusion.

                      “For all your talk about reframing the debate and moving politics to a higher plane, you sure sound like someone who simply likes to hear himself talk…”

                      You assert that “I like to hear myself talk,” as distinguished, implicitly, from others who post, who are motivated in some more benign way. But, obviously, the only thing that makes my posts a case of me “liking to hear myself talk” is the fact that you don’t like to hear me talk. Obviously, I have limited influence on what you do and don’t like, and limited responsibility for it.

                      “…and frames every disagreement as a personal attack to boot.”

                      Disagreement? The last “disagreement” we had that didn’t boil down to whether I am a despicable human being or not was when I argued that using a university email account in a political campaign wasn’t a substantive issue, because every candidate has access to free email accounts. That was the moment, months ago, when you (if I remember correctly), and a couple of others, conceived your implaccable hatred for me (though my observation was, I believe, completely accurate, which may well be why it rankled so much).

                      The simple fact is that every “disagreement” with you since then has been a personal attack, and was initiated by you for no other reason than to make a personal attack. That’s really pretty obvious. Do we really need to keep pretending otherwise?

                      “You can take pride in that!”

                      Actually, I take pride in none of this, and feel shame for very little of it. It’s annoying, but increasingly less so, and increasingly more of something else. The fact that I’ve incited such strong hateful feelings among a small handful of participants on this site makes me ask questions about what I’m doing wrong (as a human being, not as a candidate), but it also makes me ask what is wrong with us, we human beings, that we so easily, and so smugly, decline to such levels, and remain there with such a force of will. That really does trouble me, and I’m not just posturing when I say that.

                      I do take some pride in the fact that I think about these things, and try to do better. I take pride that I harbor no independent ill-will toward anyone, and pride that I would at least like to get to a place where I feel no annoyance or anger when others harbor ill-will toward me.

                      But in these interactions, there’s no cause for pride on anyone’s part. Of that I am certain.

                      You may find this smug, or offensive, or whatever: I wish I could phrase it in a way that would avoid that pitfall. I suppose that it is self-serving or self-inflating, because we are all trying to be what we are trying to be. But all I can do is say it, sincerely, with or without hope of it’s having any effect: My hand will always be ready to reach out in friendship, to any and all who want to take it in friendship. Even someone as flawed as me can manage that much.

                    • BICora says:

                      or Steve.

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      No offense intended.

                    • BICora says:

                      I took no offense – just felt…ya know… lonely all of sudden.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      I think it would be kinda nice to be “Steve” for awhile….

            • BICora says:

              I went to the website, struck me as obvious that there are two Maeses listed.

              And no GM.

              If two of the people listed were named “Ritter”  or “McGinnis” it would be a reasonable question. It still is.

              Now if there were two Hasans listed- that would be interesting in a different way

              • Steve Harvey says:

                1) If the names are sufficiently unique that there is a reasonable possibility that they belong to people who are fairly closely related, then there is a rebutable presumption that they might be related, and

                2) If they are closely related, then there is a rebutable presumption that they very well might share social-cultural orientations.

                It’s not unreasonable, all things being equal, to wonder whether two salespeople named Maes might be related to one Republican candidate named Maes. If I were a friend of someone in the Denver area named “Maes,” and I ran into someone else with that same name, I might well ask, “Are you any relation to…?” On the other hand, if I were friend of someone named “Hasan,” and I ran into someone else named “Hasan,” I would definitely not ask, “Are you any relation to…?”

                And it’s not unreasonable to wonder, if such a relationship turned out to be the case, and if the relationship was close enough (less in terms of consanguinity than shared life experiences), whether the actions of one offered any insights into the disposition of the other. For instance, if I knew of two brothers who were active members of the KKK, and then learned of the existance of a third brother who co-owned a business with the other two, went on frequent hunting trips with the other two, and pretty much had a closely intertwined life with the other two, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to wonder if the third had KKK sympathies as well.

                But, given the number of “ifs” involved, and given the cost to a candidate of being unfairly conflated, even to such a small degree, with perpetrators of such an offensive act, I agree with LB that it’s better to wonder quietly unless and until there is a basis for wondering out loud. It really is moderately improbable that the fact that there are two salespeople named “Maes” at Wolf Automotive indicates anything at all about the gubernatorial candidate named “Maes.” So, why go there?

                • BICora says:

                  drama, craziness and whythehell not?

                  Jeez- you are both right.

                  LB in his straightforward who cares way. You in your inductive, carefully worded way.

                  But so am I.

                  If by inspiring me to visit his website, Mr Wolf doesn’t think I’ll notice, nor that many others wouldn’t – he’s nuttier than I thought. (I think he thinks most people agree with him- they don’t- and that his sign will be good for business- it won’t)

                  If LB thinks its not worth asking- then by similar logic it is not worth asking all kids of things that get asked in political campaigns.  I’m not talking about  asking about why Glenn Beck was never indicted for raping a young girl. I’m not talking about asking Governor Palin what newspapers and magazines she reads.

                  I’m talking about David Duke Jr running for office in Louisiana and asking if he’s any relation to that other Duke character.  I’m talking about meeting someone named Flipper and asking him if he’s related to the one from the tv show.  I’m asking about a right leaning, Obama opposing citizen (I presume- I’ve never seen his birth certificate) who has two employees with the same last name as a gubernatorial candidate and asking if they are related. It’s a perfectly reasonable political question.

                  • ClubTwitty says:

                    and I thought I needed a life. Wow, I can’t believe I just read (about half of) that!  

                    That’s what I call a virtual circle jerk…

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      everyone ends up gratified. This was something else altogether.

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      I assumed you all got some perverse satisfaction out of it, not letting it go and all, continuing to beat….a dead horse as it were.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      I participate here because I enjoy keeping up on Colorado politics, reading the posts of others about political issues, and posting my honest thoughts on such issues, and for no ohter reason. I don’t enjoy responding to all of these tedious, persistent, highly motivated, and generally strained expressions of others’ hostility, despite the fact that I do so.

  26. kohmstede says:

    To the employees of Wolf Automotive, here are a few suggestions for other employment.

    Longmont Ford – Call Greg 720-560-2839

    Rocky’s 6350 N. Federal Blvd. M-F 10:am

    Burt Automotive All locations

    Mike Shaw Automotive Call Dan 303438-7507

    All of the above companies have posted job openings in the last week.

    Wishing the employees a better life away from an owner who made a bad choice.  

  27. Crestone says:

    Brilliant! This is nothing more than focused marketing at its best. Anyone who swallows this kind of bullshit would likely be very willing to pay way too much for a used car.  

  28. Half Glass FullHalf Glass Full says:

    Barely a month ago, some redneck restaurant-owner in Georgia put up a sign in front of his establishment saying:

    “Obama’s Plan for Health Care: Ni**er Rig It”

    And now we’ve got our very own racist, idiotic local businessman.

    Never let it be said that Colorado takes a back seat to any other state when it comes to offensive wingnuttery.

  29. Half Glass FullHalf Glass Full says:

    Thinking about going there with my own sign.

  30. dwyer says:

    You know, wadhams, candidates, elected officials…all have said that the billboard and the spurious attack on the President is outrageous and they denounce it ….

    Oh wait a minute.  not one damm f**&# word from our good americans from the republican party….all quiet on the red front.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.