U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser (D) Joe Neguse (D) Michael Bennet
50% 50% 50%
Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) Brian Mason

60%↑

30%↑

20%↓

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%↑

30%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

45%↓

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 01, 2010 03:39 PM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • 214 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“You can’t build a reputation on what you are going to do.”

–Henry Ford

Tweet
Share

Comments

214 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread”

  1. With the Obama administration betting the nation can absorb another $500 billion to $1 trillion in new taxes to feed the national government machine and thousands of new programs to assist dropouts and illegal aliens, small businesses remain skeptical. The Post knows this small business concern exists …. and well they penned an article on it last week.


    Colorado’s small businesses are big players in a recovery but remain cautious about future

    When it comes to job growth in Colorado, no one does it like small business.

    Companies with fewer than 500 employees created 86 percent of the state’s new private-sector jobs from 2003 to 2006, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration. The smallest companies – those with fewer than five workers – made more than half of those hires.

    The loss of company headquarters in Colorado, including Frontier Airlines and First Data, and the pending loss of Qwest’s headquarters, only heightens the critical role that small businesses play in the state’s economy.

    But as politicians and legions of jobless Coloradans look to them to help spark an economic recovery, many of the state’s small-business owners

    click on image to enlarge remain cautious and uncertain about the future.

    http://www.denverpost.com/busi…

    Yes sports fans, the Obama administration does believe this aditional taxing capacity exists and will be required to feed the beast. Local officials and small businesses who depend on them for roads and police protection should be concerned.

    How will our local governments (Colorado’s being 6th in the nation in taxing) respond to this heavy handed federal approach? Chris Christie says it all in the following….

    Back to the Post article….

    “We’re down fairly dramatically, a good strong 30 percent over 2008,” said Bob Brown, president of Harsh International, an Eaton maker of truck hydraulics and agricultural products with about 80 employees. “A little bit has come back this year but not that much. There are little, tiny glimmers of hope out there.”

    After 18 months of falling orders, layoffs, store closings and belt-tightening, many of Colorado’s 127,000 small businesses are battered and bruised, though a bit leaner and stronger too.

    So ask yourself just how is that Stimulus working Bailout Brother?

    “We’re busy now, doing OK, but once May is over, I don’t know what we’ll do. But then in June, it will probably fill up. There’s no long-term pipeline of work out there,” Brown said.

    1. Did you even READ that before you pasted your post Libertad?

      So it follows the only reputation republicans have is hat Bush/Cheney/Rove did. we can see the direct results of their actions here.

      http://globalwarming.house.gov…

      So it follows Libertad, stating what you and the republicans would do. Is exactly the opposite of what President Obama is doing.

      considering the GOP track record, including the “Contract ON America”… I and many others are quite happy with President Obama doing what ever Pisses off republicans. as Obviously What pisses off conservative republicans, MUST be the correct thing to do.

          1. The prescription for your unsustainable approach to willy-nilly spending and tax hikes is to watch this video daily.

            The nation is headed to bankruptcy like a Volvo driving yuppie in loaded down with an interest-only Fannie Mae mortgage note levered at 8x his yearly gross.

            Consumer confidence might comeback … but you need private sector job growth, not unsustainable government expansion of entitlement programs.

              1. — if you haven’t persuaded anyone, the important thing is to keep repeating the same fucking thing over and over. Or at least that’s a good strategy when (like L) you don’t have that much to say.

    2. If you want to compare true tax burdens you have to look at the combined state/local rates.  When viewed through an apples-to-apples lens we are 46th in the nation in total tax burden.  We have high local rates because we pride ourselves on our diminimus state rate.  Environment for small businesses?  Forbes consistently ranks our state as a great place to do business.

      You named three businesses that all well exceed the 500-person threshhold “small business” definition. So I’m confused.  Are you taking about small business here or large, corporate interests who are known for moving around?  Qwest acquirer, CenturyTel is now a behemoth telco.  FirstData [responsible for the Frontier bankrupcy filing] would move overnight from country to country if they could save a dime.  Frontier is coming back stronger than ever.  It’s all your beloved global market forces at work.  And BTW, Frontier didn’t leave Denver because our taxes were too high – they moved because we couldn’t offer them greater tax incentives to stay — which would require dollars to be available to give them – from , gasp, taxes paid by Denver and Colorado residents.

      So what do you want, lower taxes and the inability to compete with tax credits from states better funded for economic development?  Or higher taxes and the ability to draw new business in the state with ED funding?

      1. The Tax Foundation had CO ranked at 34th in state taxes in 2008 — and that is a liberal number by any real examiniation of the facts. Hickenritter have grown the state-Denver tax burden since them. http://www.taxfoundation.org/f…

        Even retirmentliving.com uses the Tax Foundation as its basis (http://retirementliving.com/RLtaxburdens.html). The story the Tax Foundation doesn’t tell is the burden of local taxes in Colorado.

        What these sites all encounter is the dramatic error in failing to account for local tax burden on the people. Additionally, the mother city (Denver) continues to abuse the rest of the state by sucking off resources to backfill its need for spending.

        You do the math on Colorado’s real tax burden … http://www.usgovernmentspendin…

        3. So even by your admission, we’re taxed less than 33 states in our Union?  Not 5 like you pretended to insinuate in your original post?  Local tax burden?  In case you missed the nuance…they are approved by l-o-c-a-l-s.  If it’s high it’s because the locals determined, by democratic vote, that they were necessary.  

  2. If there was some magic bullet that could lift us out of the economic retraction and relatively “jobless recovery”, I’m sure it would have already been used. But the fact is there isn’t.

    Small business is key to the recovery. But the formation and expansion of small businesses is still being hampered by tight credit. We’ve “primed the pump” on the public sector side about as much as we can (albiet at the expense of hugs deficits which I abhor), so there has to be more emphasis in providing access to capital for small businesses to expand and create jobs.

    I am putting together a business plan right now for a small business that will employ less than 5 employees, but I am looking at raising capital through equity (investors) rather than debt because of the credit situation.

    1. There’s this little thing business people call a PG or Personal Guarantee. Its like pledging you ass, your kids asses, all your other assets and your house.

      Banks have a tendancy to demand this when you want a loan … hell ask your fearless Senator Michael Bennet, he’ll know about it. Anyway, stop blaming the banks or using them as an excuse.

      http://www.investorwords.com/3…

      1. I have a couple existing businesses ( LLC’s) right now in which I have lines of credit or commercial credit cards, all backed by my personal guarantee.

        So when the shit hit the fan two years ago and the banks froze credit, why don’t you tell me why a $25,000 line of credit from Wells Fargo in one of my LLC’s was reduced overnight to $1300 ? ( There was 0 balance on this account, my credit was good – no defaults or even lates on anything, nothing changed in my financial status)

        At the same time Wells Fargo got a 25 BILLION DOLLAR bailout from the taxpayers. They didn’t seem to get their credit cut back.

        As usual, you’re full of it. And why you’re at, why don’t you tell us how many companies you own and how many personal guarantees you have on credit lines in those companies?  

        1. There’s a cost to the Omaba-Bush bailouts; and tight capital ratios have a way of impacting over extended customers (yourself). You may have never used it, as thousands experienced, but there is no way to differentiate you from the overlevered, Volvo driving, interest only mortgage holder of a million dollar Aurora property.

          I guess the root of the problem was Ted Kennedy and his boy Barney Frank’s free for all over at Fannie Mae.

          ‘Critical’ Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Need More Aid, Report Says

          May 25, 2010, 7:48 PM EDT

          May 25 (Bloomberg) — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage companies operating under U.S. conservatorship, will require additional government aid amid losses stemming from the 2008 credit crisis, the nation’s top housing regulator said in its annual report to Congress.

          “While critical to supporting the ongoing functioning of the nation’s housing finance system, the enterprises would be unable to serve the mortgage market in the absence of the ongoing financial support,” said Edward DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said in the report released today.

          The so-called government-sponsored enterprises, which own or guarantee half the loans in the $11 trillion U.S. mortgage market, operated as private companies before they were seized by the federal government amid soaring losses in September 2008. Since then, Washington-based Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of McLean, Virginia, have survived on a promise of unlimited U.S. aid, drawing $145 billion in Treasury Department funding.

          http://www.businessweek.com/ne…

          What I’m saying is  …don’t expect WellsFargo to reup that $25k LOC.

          But do expect POTUS to have a leadership issue on forcing $1 trillion in new taxes on the citizen’s, expanding entitlement programs, keeping Fannie/Freddie afloat and trying to clean up the Gulf Coast … not to mention Iraq, Iran, Afgan, Korea, PRC-Taipei, Sudan, Gaza, Iceland …..

          That POTUS gig is a real MF’er.

          1. Please explain to me how a $ 0 balance on a $25,000 line of credit is “over extending” ?

            Waiting for your answer Libby…..

            And while you’re at it, why don’t you answer my previous question to you asking how many businesses you own and operate and your personal guarantees on lines of credit or loans at those businesses.

            I’ll be waiting for your answers, as will all of us here at Pols….

  3. The news here is that POTUS has picked up +7 points in the last week. Is he making a move, is this sustainable, is there a future crisis he can rise to positive numbers, can Hickenlooper ride these coatails ….?

    Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

    Tuesday, June 01, 2010

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 27% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13 (see trends http://www.rasmussenreports.co…

    Republicans continue to hold a lead on the Generic Congressional Ballot. http://www.rasmussenreports.co…

    With Obama not on the fall ballot, the concern is real for the Democratics. Over the life of the administration the GOP has picked up 7 pts, while the majority has lost 5 pts. This +12 pt swing by the GOP is weak considering the unamerican movements of government leaders during the last 18 months. What it says to me is the GOP has not earned the right to govern at the legislative level.

    Are the people pissed; you bet they are. Obama’s numbers tell that story. I would submit that a Hickenlooper strategy to ride the coatails of Omaba-Ritter will fail. He must find a breakout path to lead to Tea Party satisfaction of risk the real possibility of losing to the mild mannered Scott McInnis 47-42 as predicted by the polls.

    The fact is the Democratics are facing serious headwinds as they make the run along the downwind leg. Hickenloopers late entry is parallel to a traffic pattern merge on this downwind leg; he needs to assure Ritter has exited the pattern before the turn to base.

    Name calling thre Tea Party crowd as racists, bigots, tinhat wearing whites, gay haters, KKK members, etc… is a work in failure. The fact is this administration has made socialist moves on the American people and the Tea Party crowd is just a signal that all is not right in Democratland.

    With polling numbers like these the final approach will be bumpy enough without the noise of parking meters, miss managed City  government, backroom dealings or a record of hiking taxes.

    2. At least those numbers are Rasmussen trying to drive the conversation.  And YOU are falling for it.

      They are so out of line with other pollsters it is ridiculous!  In addition they are polling more often than other pollsters so that they affect polling averages disproportionately.

      They usually attempt to poll more accurately about a week or so before an election because that is what people remember – outcomes.

      Here are some reasons to look at Rasmussen numbers with a jaundiced eye:

      http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…

      http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…

      http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…

      http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…

      Rasmussen, in particular, has had a substantial Republican-leaning house effect thus far this year.

      http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…

      There is more but that is probably enough for now.  

      1. … to make much the same point — that Rasmussen basically exists to publish “outlier” skewed pro-R polls that get attention precisely because no other pollster agrees with them.  Being an outlier makes them  newsworthy rather than good, much like Rand Paul or Alan Grayson.

      2. You’re also promoting that Dick Wadham’s is trying to “drive the conversation” by organizing the people in their basements and their church basements. Spreading fear is a failed tactic, especially when the facts tell a different story.

        Your Party leaders are systematically promoting that the Tea Party is made up of 2 types of people: those yelling nasty and “racist” Hispanic and Black names and those wearing white hoods and capes.

        The fact is your failed policies in education have provided the racist path by which we as a society have increased DPS’s dropout rate to 50%+.


        Black conservative tea party backers take heat

        ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) – They’ve been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement-and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation’s first black president.

        “I’ve been told I hate myself. I’ve been called an Uncle Tom. I’ve been told I’m a spook at the door,” said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.

        “Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks,” he said.

        Johnson and other black conservatives say they were drawn to the tea party movement because of what they consider its commonsense fiscal values of controlled spending, less taxes and smaller government. The fact that they’re black-or that most tea partyers are white-should have nothing to do with it, they say.

        “You have to be honest and true to yourself. What am I supposed to do, vote Democratic just to be popular? Just to fit in?” asked Clifton Bazar, a 45-year-old New Jersey freelance photographer and conservative blogger.

        Opponents have branded the tea party as a group of racists hiding behind economic concerns-and reports that some tea partyers were lobbing racist slurs at black congressmen during last month’s heated health care vote give them ammunition.

        But these black conservatives don’t consider racism representative of the movement as a whole-or race a reason to support it.

        Angela McGlowan, a black congressional candidate from Mississippi, said her tea party involvement is “not about a black or white issue.”

        “It’s not even about Republican or Democrat, from my standpoint,” she told The Associated Press. “All of us are taxed too much.”

        http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9ETR1380

        1. I don’t know whether it’s impressive or hypocritical that a dude with the grammar of a fourth grader (e.g., “you’re” versus “your”, and writing “citizen’s” to mean the plural “citizens”) is praising education!

          Maybe there’s a G.E.D. program, or a downloadable “Learn Grammar with Dora and Diego” video, you can use to learn you some English’s, Illiteratad?

    3. in congressional races, why is it that the only special election won by a republican in the last two years has been when there were two democrats running, consequently splitting the democratic vote?

      1. It seems to just shut down the conversation. I have yet to hear a single conservative give a rational explanation or answer to this question and boy, I’d love to hear one. And we’re gonna take that seat back in November so it’s a win for the GOP for all of 6 months.  

          1. So, that big seat aside, how do you explain Democrats winning the last 7 special elections for the House?

            For those keeping score, there have been seven special elections for U.S. House seats since the president’s inauguration 16 months ago: NY20, IL5, CA32, CA10, NY23, FL19, and PA12. Democrats have won all seven.

            Your thoughts, bj?

            1. Obviously, some districts are always going to go Democrat. Can you explain why Republicans are up in all the polls in 2010? And what about Chris Christie and Bob McConnell getting elected? And the impact of the Tea Party? And an Obama approval rating at 42%?

              2. Your admission that you don’t have a fucking clue is at least honest.

                As to answering your questions, yes, I can explain but I don’t like you very much so I’m not going to bother doing it.

                    1. The race wasn’t even close. It was a blowout.

                      If Republicans are hoping that Reagan Democrats are automatically going to go for Tea Party candidates, they should take notice of Pennsylvania 12.

                    2. Shut the hell up.

                      Nothing personal, really, but bad math makes me angry. I can’t even remember the last time I heard someone use the phrase “exponentially increasing” in anything close to the correct way.

                      If you don’t know what a word means, pick another one.

                2. Also, President and U.S. House are very different things; sometimes people like a Dem in the congressional seat and a Repub in the executive seat. I should have just said “I don’t know but I don’t like you so I’m not going to answer.”

              3. Went R for president and governor the last two opportunities they had.

                Yet they had the good sense to re-elect Murtha too.

                I was not surprised when PA 12th went R last month.

                Oh, wait….

          2. generally understood to mean the lower house, or the House of Representatives.

            Granted, Scott Brown won the only special election for a senate seat over the past two years.  This does not change the fact that Republicans have lost 7 of 8 special congressional elections over the last two years—and, as MOR points out, Democrats will reclaim the HI seat in November.

              1. in denial about?  Did Brown lose?  Did Democrats win the Hawai’ian congressional seat (yes, the Democratic candidates won more votes than the Republican candidate, but the Republican won).  Have Democrats won 7 of the 8 special congressional (again, congress is understood in most circles to mean the US House of Representatives) elections over the last two years?

                Help me out here.  

                1. I just cited the portion of the bill with death panels. And you think that insurance companies have “death panels” too, so I’d shut up if I were you.

                  1. Cite is line and page.

                    No what I said was the government wanted there to be a minimum benefit. Minimum– a floor not a ceiling.  there is NO death panel in the federal bill so your misstatement that I said “too” meaning “as well” is false.  Since you seem to be reading impaired I will state again–there are death panels in private insurance and there are NO death panels in the federal law.

                    I will again repeat my suggestion to read, and more importantly understand, what is in the bill.

                    1. …and that’s as good as you’re going to get from me. You’ll have to actually look at the bill for more details. I fail to see how pointing out the death panel in the bill has convinced you that there is no such death panel in the bill. The only “reading impairment” here is you not reading the bill. I will repeat my assertion that I did read and understand what is in the bill, and challenge you to do the same.

                    2. that is in Section 122

                      21 SEC. 122. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED.

                      (a) IN GENERAL.-In this division, the term ”essential benefits package” means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security, that-

                      (1) provides payment for the items and services described in subsection (b) in accordance with generally accepted standards of medical or other appropriate clinical or professional practice;

                      (2) limits cost-sharing for such covered health care items and services in accordance with such benefit standards, consistent with subsection (c);

                      (3) does not impose any annual or lifetime limit on the coverage of covered health care items and services;

                      (4) complies with section 115(a) (relating to network adequacy); and

                      (5) is equivalent, as certified by Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to the average prevailing employer-sponsored coverage.

                      (b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.-The items and services described in this subsection are the fol21

                      lowing:

                      Then it goes in to detail about the MINIMUM coverage.

                      Last time I ever respond to you

                    3. after you say you aren’t going to respond. I was talking about section 123, not 122. There are plenty of other things the panel does besides 5b.

                    4. There was no ‘death panel’ in Section 123 of the health care reform bill back when the ‘death panel’ myth was first floated back in August 2009, and there isn’t one now.  In fact, a Google search for ‘section 123’ and ‘death panel’ returns a number of sites debunking that myth, most of them dating from last August.  You’re trying to support your claim on a long-debunked talking point.

                    5. are leftist sites covering for Obama. And yes, factcheck.org is a left wing site.

                    6. You’ve checked them all?

                      You’re either a liar or a fruitcake.

                      Come to think of it, those two things aren’e mutually exclusive.

                      Here’s the problem you are facing, BlowJob.  People here actually check shit out.  You can probably bullshit people anywhere else, but not here.

                    9. Mostly they just cuss at you because they can’t come up with an argument to prove you wrong.

                    13. Nah, I’m pretty sure you’ve got the worst case of mental constipation I’ve seen on this site.

                      The only question is who gets bored first with proving you’re the fool — you or us.

                    15. the actual text of section 123 of the actual bill? Try it, and you’ll find that there are no death panels. What, in the section you are citing, at least one member of the chronically dishonest (and confused) right is calling “death panels” was merely a system for determining benefits, such as every single healthcare system on Earth has, since we have not yet discovered a way to provide unlimited distributions of limited resources. When you figure that one out, be sure to let the rest of us know.

                      Of course, you were citing the wrong section of the bill. When Palin first recycled Betsy McCaughey’s intentionally inflamatory rhetoric of “death panels,” she was refering to section 1233 (not 123), which discussed compensating for already commonly offered end-of-life counseling services, which impose no decision on the patient, but merely explain their options. Ironically, Palin herself, as Governor of Alaska, had earlier advocated rationing healthcare (because, again, there is absolutely no alternative but to, in some way or another, ration a limited resource for which there is unlimited demand),  

                    16. The point is that big government control of healthcare inevitably leads to denials of life-saving procedures because they cost the government too much. Just look at Canada. Setting up panels to determine benefits sets a dangerous precedent which would soon lead to such denials.

                    17. Healthcare, as a limited set of resources, will be rationed one way or another, with or without government involvement. If left strictly to the market, it will be rationed according to wealth, leaving the poor (including their infants and children) to die of preventable illnesses, of minor injuries and infections left untreated, while the wealthy have access to state-of-the-art care. Some people favor that system of rationing, but not people with an ounce of human decency.

                      Our current mediator in the market, private health insurance companies, already have “panels” (boards of directors) that determine what will be covered by what policies, and under what circumstances care will be denied even to those who are covered, with caps on expenditures and various techniques for cutting costs by denying legitimate claims. The policy of giving bonuses to insurance adjustors for finding excuses to deny legitimate claims was just outlawed in Colorado this past legislative session, prior to which it was all-too-common practice.

                      One of governments legitimate functions is to intervene in various market failures, including some completely unjust distributions of basic needs necessary to continued survival. We don’t permit speculative purchases of water rights in the West for just that reason. And we shouldn’t permit market mechanisms to deny people access to healthcare arbitrarily.

                      Instead, we seek to balance efficiency of production with equity of availability. The government board in section 123 which would determine benefits is no different from its counterparts in private insurance companies except in one way, and one way only: It would seek to distribute benefits in a way which provides everyone with a basic level of care, and seek a fair system of access for increasingly expensive and “heroic” types of care.

                      Personally, for all of the ballyhoo about it, I would much rather live in a world that denies a 99 year old on death’s doorstep a million dollar treatment that would extend their life a day or two in favor of providing a different million dollar treatment to a child who would be allowed to live a long life as a result. And I will continue to say that at any age, as many elderly people do; what parent or grandparent would ever want their own life extended a little at the expense of saving their own child or grandchild? And why should we as a society act any differently?

                      It’s not as if a national healthcare policy eliminates private markets. If you can afford care beyond that which is provided by a government plan, you are always welcome to purchase it on the private market. More power to you.

                      As for Canada, their health outcomes are superior to ours by every single statistical measure, at a far lower cost. Despite the conveniently invoked, often invented (and always irrelevant) anacdotal evidence about Canadians rushing to the United States to benefit from our healthcare (you mean like many Americans of modest means go to Mexico for cheap dental care, or like many wealthy Americans go to Europe for exotic medical treatments not available in the United States?), as a statistical fact, Canadians were more content with their healthcare system than Americans with theirs prior to reform (52% to 48%, if I recall correctly. It was in that range).

                      So, you see, what I admit is that you are absolutely clueless, through and through.

                    18. I’m sure supporting euthanasia is going to go over real well in your campaign. Good luck Mr. Harvey.

                      You make socialized health care sound so good, but you leave out the part about it bankrupting the country, leaving dying people waiting in line, cutting the amount of doctors willing to work for minimial wages, resulting in worse quality of health care for everyone, etc., etc., …

                    19. and straw men. Nothing I said implies support of euthanasia. And, unlike your empty assertions, I cite statistics and make arguments based on them. The Economist magazine (which is a free-market advocate) has always supported universal single-payer healthcare as the most economically efficient system of healthcare provision, a conclusion born out by both comparative and econometric analyses.

                    20. not born out by reality. You should never just implement something based on theory alone; it needs to be tested first as well. Tests on this one (i.e. other countries who have implemented socialized medicine) have failed.

                    21. As I’ve already stated twice, Canada’s healthcare outcomes are superior to the US’s by every statistical measure, costs less per capita, and covers everyone. European healthcare systems (which you would call “socialized”) also are cheaper (both absolutely and per capita) than the US’s, cover everyone, and all, on almost all statistical measures, have superior health outcomes to those in the United States. You’re simply factually wrong, repeated factually wrong statements, and ignoring the actual data.

                    22. But that doesn’t make it true. The fact that you are actually arguing for socialized medicine demonstrates your weak grip on reality. Of course their health care is cheaper – they simply deny services which they don’t want to pay for.

                    24. .

                      Your “documentation” states:

                      At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.  

                      Patently false.  Income taxes in Canada are around 50%.  

                      Did you personally pay only 18% in local, state, and federal taxes ?  

                      .

                    25. and not remembering the contents of the article (which I read many months ago), I knew what your error was. And, lo and behold! when I looked, it was exactly as I thought.

                      In other words, Barron, it’s not your finest day. You neglected to quote the immediately preceding lines, which made clear the meaning of the sentence you took out of context:

                      In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada’s taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash.

                      The income being referred to includes government benefits coming back as a result of taxes paid in.

                    26. whether you innocently overlooked the obvious in the article you were rejecting, or whether you were so determined to reject a truth that doesn’t conform to your predisposition that you were willing to reject it through any dishonest means necessary?

                      I have occasionally thought, that for all of the flaws in your understanding of social issues, you were at least a sincere person embued with some basic integrity. Bad attempts to undermine uncomfortable truths raises doubts about that assessment.

                      For future reference, assuming that it was an innocent error, if you come across an article citing statistical data, and the data appears patently absurd, a good first step is to try to figure out what it is you are missing, rather than assume that the article is simpling citing things that make no sense at all.

                    27. There are numerous figures that back up Steve’s comment.  We have only the 50th best life expectancy in the world, and are 44th in infant mortality (CIA 2009 fact book).  We have the most expensive care in the world, and are the only industrialized nation that does not cover all of its citizens (source: OECD).

                      But it’s obviously worse if it’s “socialist”.

                    28. Other countries compute life expectancy way differently than we do, excluding infant mortality, etc. We have the most expensive care in the world because we have the BEST care in the world. Or at least we did before the health care bill passed. As I pointed out, “socialist” experiments in universal health care have all failed.

                    29. Give me one credible source – not an opinion piece, but a source with numbers and analysis.

                      The reason we’re all virtually laughing at you is that you insist you’re winning your arguments, but you’ve provided almost nothing to back up your claims, whereas those of us who’ve been willing to engage you have been quoting source after source.

                      I hate to see bad “facts” go unanswered, but I’m beginning to agree with Danny, et al: never argue with a mule; it does you no good and it annoys the mule.

                    30. As I pointed out, “socialist” experiments in universal health care have all failed.

                      Here’s documentation of the assertion, re: Canada. And here’s the table that was in the print version, but not the electronic one.

                      The first one is an empty assertion, repeated, but never backed up with a single example. Not only that, if you did bother to find a single example, it would not make your case; a single example of allegedly socialist health care having failed isn’t evidence that all have failed. Such anecdotal evidence is only relevant to disprove such sweeping claims, not to prove them (such as my use of the Canadian system disproves your claim that such systems are never superior to our own).

                      You lack knowledge of facts, grasp of reason, and awareness of where the state of scholarship is (e.g., 80% of American economists favored Democratic over Republican economic policies in a poll taken prior to the 2008 presidential election, but conservatives endlessly offer their own pseudo-economic certainties, without any reference to actual analyses or data). And you showcase your unfortunate combination of arrogance and ignorance with a dogged refusal to be in any way affected by reality, asserting instead that everyone else (who, unlike you, actually cite data, make arguments, and engage in reasoned analyses) are the ones detached from reality.

                      It’s not that this phenomenon never occurs on the left; it’s just that so many of you on the far-right seem to have mastered it. And that is precisely how you manage to champion, as a political ideological movement, so many fanatical ideas that are so utterly and demonstrably absurd, both empirically and analytically.

                    31. “Canadian health outcomes are better by every single statistical measure” with “socialized medicine results in worse quality of care for everyone.” Statistical fact ignored, arbitrary assertion simply restated. You arbitrarily assert that “socialized medicine” will “bankrupt the country, somehow missing the fact that our (former) healthcare system was the most expensive in the world (both absolutely and per capita), yielded, as stated above, worse health outcomes by every statistical measure than other countries that utilized “socialized medicine,” and covered a smaller portion of the population than the healthcare system of any other developed world (almost all of which opt for some form of universal coverage).

                      You keep claiming to have facts and reason on your side, but all you do is make empty assertions in stark contradiction to both facts and reason.

                    32. that you are in favor of a pooled limited resource (either a private insurer or a government single-payer system) always providing everyone with every medical procedure they require, leading to an even more rapidly accelerating debt crisis than the one we have now? Or are you saying that, in limiting the provision of such resources, it is a good choice to spend a million dollars to extend a 99 year-old terminally ill patient’s life on day, rather than spend the same million dollars to extend a curable 8-year-old’s life by 70 or so years?

                      Your positions are empty, ill-conceived, and meaningless. They are mere ideological mantras that crumble to dust when touched.

                    33. Fact 1: Section 123 of the final Health Care Reform bill (specifically, the reconciliation package) establishes a panel to recommend MINIMUM benefits and standard premium benefits.  It has no authority to limit benefits.  (You can read the text at the Government Printing Office website which I’ll try to convince you isn’t a liberal conspiracy site.

                      Fact 2: Section 1233, as Steve just pointed out above, at one point recommended a new standard benefit – reimbursement for end-of-life planning (aka living wills and similar decisions).  You won’t find this provision in the final law, the Senate never passed it.

                      Your Conclusion: Hah!  Death Panels exist, and Palin was right!

                    34. would eventually lead to death panels. No, it was not in the final bill, thanks to Palin and people like me. But I take it you would have rather had the death panels in the bill.

                    35. I have to admit I’ve never seen one blogger take on so many different positions on one issue over the course of a day as you have.

                      First it’s Section 123 has death panels, then it’s 123 might lead to denied coverage, then it’s Section 1233 (once someone is kind enough to point that out to you), and it’s about denying coverage to the elderly because of cost controls.

                      Of course, then your head will explode trying to explain the health care reform provisions which prohibit the health insurance company from rescinding the patient from their rolls when they start racking up covered expenses, or capping the amount paid for those services…

                    36. maybe it’s just too complex an issue for you to comprehend. The death panels were in one version of the bill which very well could have become law if we hadn’t stopped you crazy people.

                    37. There never were “death panels” in any version of the bill. You cited one provision that was about the determination of benefits, the same thing that private insurance companies do, except with a public interest mandate rather than merely a private profit mandate. I helped you out by pointing out that the provision most commonly cited as being the one to create “death panels” was a different section of the bill, which only would have compensated doctors for a service already commonly performed: End of life planning. It did not involve anyone making any decisions about who should live and who should die. You prefer to repeat, endlessly, ideologically motivated falsehoods, while others prefer to seek out well-reasoned and factually based understandings. That’s what distinguishes you from those you are interacting with here, and that’s what distinguishes your ideology from mine.

                    38. in any of your posts. You have merely asserted, and then ignored the facts and logical arguments that refute your assertions, telling us all the while that you do so because of what you arbitrarily consider to be your superior academic training, and assuring us that you’re not a lemming, like the rest of us (by which I can only assume you mean “people who apply reason to evidence in order to draw conclusions.” Again, if that’s your definition of “lemming,” then, yes, you are not one and most of us responding to you are. But, just as with your definition of “facts,” that’s going to be pretty confusing to people who rely on the more conventional definitions…).

                    40. At some point (maybe starting now), I’ll let him blather on without responding. But, in the meantime, I feel a bit like a dog with new rawhide toy to gnaw on….

                    43. It’s pretty easy to get you guys to take the bait. Everybody keeps saying they’re not going to respond because I’m not on their level or something, but they can’t help themselves from replying. Facts have a nasty way of intruding on their fantasy worlds. I’m glad you mentioned this though; I’ve been thinking about starting a “hall of shame” in my sig line for those people with the most idiotic arguments.

                    45. in the classical sense of “I really don’t care what I say, as long as I get a reaction.” The better trolls admit this less freely. Maybe you will too when you’re older.

                    46. and I also intend to provoke a reaction, because that stimulates debate, and forces people to question incorrect assumptions.

                    47. from one to another position (even a completely opposing position) in the middle of a debate shows that you are arguing just to get a reaction.

                      Your motivation or rationalization for this behavior is irrelevant; the behavior is called “trolling.”

                      Say it please. “I am B.J. Wilson, and I am a troll.”

                    48. It’s not trolling for reactions. It’s just reacting, a simple algorithm that identifies “liberals” (initially, by any suggestion that isn’t “less government,” “more guns,” “more theocracy,” or “less civil rights”) and automatically disagrees, and then continues to disagree with that poster regardless of the position being advanced (even if it no longer is “liberal” according to the original code in the algorithm), believing that by disagreeing it must be right, raising blind ideological ignorance to a perfected art of meaningless noise. It’s a mindless reflex with a name.

                      It said, if I recall correctly, that CSU granted it a masters degree. CSU has some splainin’ to do!

                    49. You hurl “incorrect (and arbitrary) assumptions” faster than a ball launcher at batting practice, to be swatted lazily away. And not only do you yield an unusually high proportion of such undefended arbitrary statements, but they are in fact the only kind of statement you ever employ! Then you claim to be “stimulating debate”!?!? OMFG!!!

                    50. the world is flat, dammit.  Columbus just sailed in a circle.   It’s flat, flat, I tell you, and Obama wants death panels, and the designated hitter rule is the best thing that ever happened to baseball, and…

              3. Would you like to join the bet we have going? I’m quite confident Dems will keep the House and Senate, but I’m generous enough to allow Republicans to split the bet.

                Your movement peaked with Scott Brown. It’s all been downhill from there. You couldn’t even win Murtha’s seat, in a conservative district that EVERY righty blog was predicting victory in. If you think that wasn’t a sign that even disappointed independents get really freaked out by the crazies among your side, you’re delusional.

                Which will make things even easier for us.

                  1. So let me get this straight: you think Republicans will take over the House this year, but they shouldn’t be expected to win any seat currently held by a Democrat?

                    Good luck with that strategy.  

                    1. But enough to take the House and maybe the Senate. Obama is a millstone hung around the neck of the Democrat Party.

                    2. You’ve lost momentum. Your overconfidence has made you overreach until all your candidates are far-right whackjobs. Most of them can’t answer a single serious question without humiliating themselves. And we still have five months to go. You’ll be lucky to win ten seats in the House.  

                      Your revolution is over, Mr. Wilson. Condolences. The bums lost!  

    4. Obama’s approval rating is partially a function of his pissing off the more progressive wing of his own party so it should not be construed as good news for Republicans.  Were I to be polled, I would certainly not be in the “Strongly Approve” category based on his performance relative to issues of import to my family (dragging his feet on DADT/DOMA/ENDA).

      Does this mean that I am going to go out and vote for Republicans?  Not on your life.

      Finally, when the Tea Party crowd distances themselves from “How did that black guy end up sitting next to me at the lunch counter—isn’t there a law against that?”, Rand Paul, then perhaps they will not be so easily painted as racist.

      1. Check out Real Clear Politics’ poll aggregator and you will see an interesting trend:

        RCP Average 5/15 – 5/31 — 47.4 46.3 +1.1

        Rasmussen Reports 5/29 – 5/31 1500 LV 46 54 -8

        Gallup 5/28 – 5/30 1547 A 47 46 +1

        CBS News 5/20 – 5/24 1054 A 47 43 +4

        Quinnipiac 5/19 – 5/24 1914 RV 48 43 +5

        CNN/Opinion Research 5/21 – 5/23 1023 A 51 46 +5

        NBC News 5/20 – 5/23 700 A 48 45 +3

        FOX News 5/18 – 5/19 900 RV 45 46 -1

        Democracy Corps (D) 5/15 – 5/18 1000 RV 47 47 Tie

        Everyone else has it at either net positive for Obama, or a tie in the case of the Democracy Corps poll (which is probably due to your point about Obama pissing off Democrats.)

        This is how it’s been ever since Obama took office. It’s amazing how, if you don’t solely cite Rasmussen or Fox, the “Obama is at 12% approval rating” talking point doesn’t hold water.

          3. You can’t win if you don’t play the game. Rasmussen can’t be accurate since it hasn’t tried to predict any elections this year.

            http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

            You see, the thing about Rasmussen is that he cares only about setting the narrative that Democrats are doomed. And it’s hard to build those narratives if you screw up polling actual elections.

            …

            So why take the risk of getting an actual election result wrong, this early in the cycle? There’s a special election in PA-12? Who cares! Rasmussen is nowhere to be found. Just like in January, when Rasmussen — who had polled the Massachusetts Senate special election twice earlier, decided to pull out of the race two weeks before the actual election. The day before that special, Rasmussen released a bizarre poll saying that nationally “interest high” in the race. Who gave a shit if there was national interest? Why wouldn’t Rasmussen poll the actual race like the rest of real pollsters?

  5. “You can’t build a reputation on what you are going to do.”

    –Henry Ford

    Isn’t that how Obama won the Nobel prize?

    1. being OPPOSITE of the Bush doctrine.

      Ya know Hitler liked “preemptive War” too.

      republican war profiteers like War for Wars profit margin.

      Us sane people like peace.  

      1. So we are not still in Iraq and Afghanistan?  And we haven’t expanded the war into Pakistan?  Wow, I must be seeing the news from an alternate universe.  

        Or you are.

        1. To you, for one person to be the “opposite” of the other, that means that every act of that person has to be the opposite. So, if Bush lives in the white house, Obama can’t, and still be the opposite. If bush got us into Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama must precipitiously withdraw our troops from both, or he is not the opposite.

          Of course, there is a subtler way to make the comparison: One is thoughtful, analytical, contemplative, and considers all of the complexities and implications of his actions, and the other is just the opposite. Bush got is into Afghanistan and Iraq in a blundering, poorly conceived, almost criminally deceptive, and foresight-devoid manner (despite good counsel from his Sec’y of State, and plenty of evidence that was hidden from Congress and the people, to have dissuaded him). Obama takes the situation that was bequeethed to him, and thinks about how best to deal with it, all things considered, all expert advice and reliable data in the mix. If the conclusion of that process is “don’t pull our precipitously, the way Bush got us in precipitously,” one could argue that that is precisely what makes him the opposite of Bush.

          To be honest, I don’t think he actually is “the opposite” of Bush. But the differences between the two are far more striking than the similarities. And all thinking people rejoice over that fact.

          1. .

            30 days would be “all due haste,” referring to a retrograde movement to Jordan, Kuwait and Turkey.  

            60 days would be “prudent.”

            Obama campaigned through the election on a promise of 16 months.  That would be “lethargic.”  That wouldda been later this month.  

            After he won the election, he shifted to Bush’s withdrawal timetable of 34 1/2 months (NLT 31 Dec 2011,) which a Bush representative signed under duress.  “Defiant delay.”  

            Administration officials have since said that 31 Dec 2011 is only a “target.”  

            Perhaps President Obama is thoughtful, analytical, contemplative.  I think that he’s afraid of Bush’s Generals.  

            .

            “… despite good counsel from his Sec’y of State …”

            Not sure what that refers to.  Secretary Powell went to the UN and presented bunk for evidence of WMD’s.  

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

            I didn’t remember, but there he is, bigger than stuff, with a devil on his left shoulder, and a worse devil on his right.

            .

            1. you missed the point. Remove the word, and the message remains the same.

              You think he’s afraid of Bush’s generals? Good for you. Random beliefs suit you well.

              Sec’y Powell famously counseled against invading Iraq, warning that “if you break it, you own it.” He was also, famously, a “good soldier”, and toed the line once overruled.

              2. .

                What did Lincoln do about insubordinate field generals ?

                What did Truman do about that pretender MacArthur ?

                What did Carter do about Singlaub (both of whom I happen to admire greatly ?)

                When a general is publicly insubordinate, a President has to either fire him or let him do whatever he wants from that point on.  

                At least 4 of Bush’s generals: McChrystal, Odierno, Petraeus and I can’t remember the 4th one – have publicly said that Obama was an idiot, but couched it in terms that they could say were misinterpreted.  

                I might know more about Powell’s personal story than you, and he was a superstar for about 15 minutes in Vietnam.  IF it was my life he had saved, by exposing himself to enemy fire to pick me up and throw me in a helicopter – as he did for his commanding officer – I would have seen to it that he got a CMH.

                But a General, especially a 4-star, or a Cabinet Secretary, that ain’t no job for no soldier no more.  That’s a leadership job.  

                His duty at that level was to NOT salute and say “yes, sir.”  His duty was to resign publicly and critically, and he FAILED.  

                Ditto for Richard Haass, supposedly the smartest guy in Bush’s State Dept.  He said afterwards he knew that the war would damage the country terribly (it did, he’s right,) but he thought that he could do more good if he abandoned his responsibilities to the nation and the Constitution, so that he could stay close to the levers of power.  

                He was confronted with the “leadership challenge,” just like Powell, and instead did the “go along to get along” anti-integrity dance.  

                Do you know Singlaub’s story ?  Carter decided to withdraw most troops from Korea, and Singlaub went public with his criticism, saying that it was a stupid idea.  He fell on his sword in order to do what he thought was best for the country.  He forced Carter to fire him.  But Carter reassessed the decision later.  

                That’s what a leader does.  Powell was in over his head, like pretty much the whole Bush team.  

                .

          2. when Bush was running things the path we were on in Iraq and Afghanistan were going to lead us into disaster.  Now that President Obama has followed the exact same path we are being shown the results of expert advice.

            The only thing that changed was who was in charge, and how the left wants to spin it, as expertly shown by you.

            1. for precipitous withdrawal when Bush was in office, either. I have always argued against trying to govern by plebiscite, though responses to presidents have to do with how we judge them in their entirety.

              Those who had the good sense to recognize that Bush should not have been entrusted with the responsibility we gave him were uneasy about having him at the helm. We didn’t trust his judgment. I, for one, do trust Obama’s judgment. So I am content to let him make presidential decisions as long as he is in office.

              The evaluations of the two presidents is not made in a vacuum. If Bush or Obama make a command decision, that decision is not evaluated solely on its own terms, but also in the context of how much we trust their judgment. Those who don’t trust Obama’s judgment can say so. Comparisons to Bush are irrelevant, because every decision is made in a different context, at a different moment, with different considerations. The decision to stay in Iraq in 2010 is not the same as the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

              1. we should then look at experience to determine who we should trust. Bush was governor of one of the largest states in the nation. Obama was a community organizer. Who do you trust more to be in command of our troops?

                1. and that’s quite a feat.

                  Saddam Hussein was the president of a large and powerful Middle Eastern country. Hitler ruled a continental empire. Are titles and positions of power the measure by which you determine who you should trust? Because, those of us who aren’t giving ourselves a colonoscopy, think more in terms of other measures.

                    1. Obama is the president of the world’s largest market economy, and the point of my post was to demonstrate the folly of your method for measuring trustworthiness, not to debate which extreme ideology has produced the worst world leaders.

  7. Just out…

    “Al and Tipper Gore, whose playful romance enlivened Washington and the campaign trail for a quarter century, have decided to separate after 40 years of marriage, the couple told friends Tuesday in an e-mail obtained by POLITICO and confirmed by an aide.”

        2. Check the previous comment where I showed you the exact part of the bill creating the death panel. Ron Paul is obviously not the President. And for the record, I supported Huckabee, not Paul, although I would vote for him now.

    1. Libertad is the handle he uses for whining about his tax burden, while BJ is the handle he uses for lying about the health care bill?

    3. to be put in the same class as Libertad. No, I’m not him. There’s a lot of us out there… you know, the majority of Americans. 😉

        1. Holding our views does not require supporting George W. Bush. He did some bad things in his presidency, like the bailouts and increased spending. Did you know that 20% of conservatives voted for Obama? Obama campaigned in a conservative way, and comparisons were even made between him and Reagan. Of course many people like myself knew he was lying through his teeth, but enough people were fooled to get him elected (and after all, the other choice was just progressive-lite). I would also like to note for the record, however, that Bush tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie while dems in congress pushed for more “affordable housing”, i.e. “bad loans”. And now with unemployment still sky high when Obama promised it would never go above 8%, Americans are finally realizing the deleterious effects of fiscal irresponsibility due to “progressive” policies.

          1. Repeating talking points is not the way to gain respect in this neighborhood. Especially when they’ve been refuted so many times before.

            1. The recession has brought to light decades of failed Democratic policies.

              liberal boarders – less American job holders, illegals filing for income tax rebates, MS13 raging, and more illegal murders.

              liberal entitlement programs – more welfare mothers, welfare father, and welfare kids.

              liberal eduction policies – urban dropout rate have grown to a strong 50%+.

              liberal healthcare – less employer provided options, higher costs, more taxes and a growing roll of Medicaid hounds

            1. You mean Clinton’s newly elected Republican Senate and Congress balanced the budget.  And, Clinton had to run to the right to get re-elected, much to the chagrin of his left wing.

              1. http://www.factcheck.org/askfa…

                It was called OMBRA and it passed congress without a SINGLE republican vote.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O…

                Let me explain the basics of budgeting.  You can’t spend more than you bring in.  If you are spending more than you bring in you either have to bring in more (raise taxes) or spend less (cut services) if you want to balance the budget.

                Republicans like to say they believe in cutting spending: not true Presidents Bush and Reagan were responsible for most of the government expansion in the last 40 years. Of course the GOP doesn’t like to include Military adventurism and defense industry welfare in their calculation of government, but it is the fact.

                When President Bush came in to office, he saw the suffering of the wealthiest 1% of the US and how growth and innovation had stagnated in the ’90’s and generously blew a whole through the bottom of the budget by giving them a $1.8 Trillion dollar tax cut paid for by working people.  A tax cut that was so badly constructed he couldn’t make it work under paygo unless it had a built in time limit (after this Bush got rid of the pay-go rules-what good are rules if you can’t do whatever you want).(tounge firmly in cheek)

                Oh by the way, This is when the GOP controlled the House and the Senate was evenly split (the D’s had control for a bit and the R’s had control for a bit).

                The facts are so obvious I do not know whether you are fundamentally ignorant, ideologically blind or just a plain old liar.

              2. then what the hell happened to the Republican congress that that socialist Bush had?

                Talk about re-writing history.

                Read it and weep:

                http://www.factcheck.org/askfa…

                Every year that Clinton was in office, the deficit got smaller…including the first two years of his term, during which time he was working with a Democratic controlled House and Senate.

              3. To Michael Dorsett/Sybil/Nancy L. Baldwin, facts never do matter.

                S/he just enjoys taking the occasional driveby crap with discredited GOP/Looney Tunes Radio talking points.

                But one useful outcome of his/her frustrated attempt at spreading disinformation is that I enjoyed reading the links containing the actual true facts!

                Thanks Nancy!  Now I can use that for future reference 😉

    1. bring back sensible regulation from the trash heap to which the very idea has been relegated by three decades of the right convincing everyone, including Dems, that regulation is evil and with Dems running scared and promising to be just as pro-corporate greed as Rs.  

      If ever there was a time for Dems to stop cowering and go back to fighting for the rights of the public in the face of amoral corporate robber barons, it’s pretty much now or wait for another 30 years to grow a back bone.

      The Bush administration took advantage of 9/11 to advance their imperial presidency aand attack on civil liberties agenda.  Obama should wrest a glimmer of hope from the obvious lessons of our current tragedy to declare the Reagan Greed is Good Era officially over and send the message that putting the public good and prosperity ahead of relentlessly growing the gap between the corporate elite and the rest of us is back and its the Dems who are going to make it happen.

      And I’d just like to say, Danny is someone it would really be an honor to be suspected of being the same person as.  

  10. everyone has one and everyone thinks that everyone else’s stinks.

    Gallup finds Americans’ favorable ratings of the Democratic and Republican parties are near record lows for each.

    “The current 36% favorable score for the Republican Party is five percentage points above the low established in December 1998 as the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach President Clinton. The Democratic Party’s 43% is two points higher than its record low measured in March.”

  11. Citrix survey: 80% of its business users plan to buy Apple iPad

    A survey conducted by Citrix of its existing customers indicates the overwhelming majority have plans to buy and support Apple’s iPad as a business tool.

    The company has reported preliminary results noting that, of the few hundred customers who have participated in its online survey:

       * 80 percent will purchase and use iPad for business

       * 84 percent will support the use of personal iPads in their organization, with half of those expecting the company to purchase the hardware for their employees

       * 87 percent say the primary use for iPads will be productivity apps

       * 90 percent will use it for business email, “closely followed by the ability to view, edit and create presentations.”

       * 60 percent say they will use iPad for online meetings and to access critical business information

       * 90 percent said the largest benefit to iPad was “increased mobility to work remote, at home, or anywhere,” while 74 percent answered “improved productivity and satisfaction.”

    In reporting the preliminary results of the survey, Citrix representative Chris Fleck wrote, “the high level of support for personal iPads seems to reinforce the notion that the iPad will be the door opener for BYOC at many companies.”

    http://www.appleinsider.com/ar…

      1. The shop is probably going get at least one – we can use it as a mobile teleprompter, and check our webcasting signal for the remote stuff.

        We’re also looking at developing rich media content for the Courts, trying for the level of the WIRED magazines they’re selling like mad.

        I’m still trying to Convince CiC Household that we need one…but then, if I can get her into the Apple store to use it….

        1. Me?  Yes.  First weekend.  Mac-nerd-dom is a big weakness.

          The girls love it – for books, and little drawing programs.  It’s awesome to travel with.

          1. …and I’ve been burned. Very first Powerbook G4, first Scuba Mac (the Blue and White) first G5 and the first iPhone.

            Had I waited a bit, I could’ve had the better version following it. I’m waiting this time.

  12. Ok, just had my first chance to hit Pols today and 90% of it is libertad or BJ posting something stupid, and then 20 people pointing out the idiocy of the statement.

    On the plus side, it meant I could read the interesting part of Pols in under 1 minute 🙂

          1. The fact that I’m running for state office means you must not be a drooling idiot…, or just that protocol prohibits me from pointing it out? Ooops. My bad. I’ll work harder at being more disingenuous and less frank in the future, so that I don’t fall afoul of expectations.

    3. This is the reason very few people eat black walnuts — way too much trouble getting through the stinky green husk then the tough black shell (have to use a hammer).  The analogy?  Just too difficult to scroll down through the waste in order to find some useful dialogue.  Wonder if Pols needs to impose some rules on the offensively ignorant – no more than 20 posts per day until you meet minimum knowledge standards.

      1. If you want rules, there are plenty of sites with a shitload of them. This one works precisely because the Guvs don’t treat us like we’re a bunch of 12 year olds that need a nanny.

        1. He dropped out of high school to avoid having to take remedial classes during the summer.

          So now we’re “blessed” with his presence.

          And as he (and only he) seems to hold himself in high esteem, he’s probably assuming he should win first prize just for showing up.

          Why would he need an education, or “knowledge” when he’s absolutely sure he’ll someday have a job with a secretary to do all the hard thinking?

            1. They’ve done numerous studies that have found that the less someone knows on a subject, the more highly they rate their knowledge of a subject. In other words, the fact that you think you are an expert is likely evidence that you don’t know squat. (Squat is the guy sitting next to you.)

            2. Oh, yeah, I’m really worried that you have a graduate degree with a 3.9 GPA…  That’s the ante.

              You really don’t get the fact that you’ve stumbled upon a site filled with contributors holding graduate, post-grad, and JD degrees.  

              Assuming you know what that means, you are welcome to check DU for my records.

              But, don’t let me stop you from proving yourself the fool once again.  As they say, a fool and his money are soon parted 😉

              Tell me, when you play baseball, after your third strike, do you always get confused and frustrated when they don’t allow you to run around the bases to complete what you thought was a home run?

              1. because I do have a graduate degree with a 3.9 GPA. Who’s the fool? I’m surprised that a JD would have to resort to such childish insults.

                1. And so if I’d said I had a Ph.D with a 6.5 GPA, you’d have one too!  

                  What an amazing coincidence!  Now you’ve really got everybody convinced 😉

                  Except I actually offered proof.

                  BTW, not that it matters — I said I had a graduate degree, not a J.D.  Not that I expected you to know the difference.

                  You have won the crown of Village Idiot!

                  Congratulations, you can add this to your long list of attendance awards.

                  1. when you actually do take the time to look it up. I do in fact have a masters degree from CSU with a GPA of 3.89. I wasn’t being sarcastic.

            4. since you spend so much effort reminding us of this (rather than just demonstrating it).

              You probably drive a big truck to overcompensate for other shortcomings.

                1. In other words, the fact that you disagree with those you disagree with is proof that you are smart. And those who don’t think just like you are all lemmings, while you are an original thinker, because you disagree with those you disagree with.

                  And if by “the liberal line” that you’ve successfully avoided you mean actual substantive thought about the topic at hand, then, yes, you have steered clear of all of us lemmings actually making arguments, in favor of getting “all mavericky” on us, and sticking to empty, arbitrary, blind ideological (and consistently erroneous) assertions. Good job.

                  1. that it makes by head spin.

                    1) I never said I was smart because I disagree with people. I said it DOESN’T mean I’m NOT smart.

                    2) I didn’t say that “those who don’t think just like me” are all lemmings; I said YOU are all lemmings.

                    3) Nobody in their right mind would equate “the liberal line” with “actual substantive thought”.

                    4) My assertions are neither empty, arbitrary, blind, or sometimes even ideological. Like I said, I think for myself.

                    So correct those errors, and then maybe we can talk logic.

                    1. The point is that the substance (or lack thereof) of what you say (and the substance of what others say) is all that matters. All other references are just noise. And continuing to respond to that noise is a waste of my time.

                    2. you keep responding. Truth has a way of being very problematic for those trying to avoid it.

            1. which is the one usually erroneously referred to as involving death panels (123 is about determining benefits, as all healthcare systems, including privately purchased insurance, do; 1233 is about compensating doctors for the already routinely offered end-of-life counseling, which imposes no decisions on patients, but rather helps patients to deal with impending death or chronic illness fully informed.

                1. end of life counseling already is the norm. The only issue was whether it should be compensated rather than uncompensated medical service.

                  As for your argument that we shouldn’t offer end-of-life counseling because doctors (the ones who perform the service, at their own discretion) will want to save the government money by counseling their patients to die…, by the same logic, shouldn’t we prevent doctors from performing any services for the elderly or terminally ill, since they can always find ways to intentionally kill their patients in order to save the government money, that being, of course, doctors’ number one concern in life?

                  Tell us again how brilliant you are…. Otherwise, it’s hard to remember.

                  1. so apparently you think quite highly of yourself. But for some reason you can’t see the ethical problems associated with government compensated end-of-life counseling. Typical Democrat I guess; it reeks of corruption.

                    1. All you’ve done is say that there is an ethical problem. You haven’t made any argument to support that assertion. And that’s your pattern here.

                      It doesn’t matter who compensates for a service. If there is some incentive to reduce costs by counseling in favor of death, that incentive exists regardless of who pays for it. If your concern is that any end-of-life counseling is unethical, because whoever will pay for continuing medical attention has an incentive to counsel in favor of death, then make that argument. It has nothing to do with the government. A private insurer faces the exact same incentives as the government, except that the private insurer is driven exclusively by profit considerations, while the government’s decision-making is balanced by a variety of other considerations, including placcating the public which votes them in and out of office. Logically, if there is a danger of fiscal incentives affecting end-of-life counseling, it is far preferable for it to be paid for publicly rather than be paid for by a for-profit corporation.

      1. that both David and yourselves form an LLC with B-X as the head (small vet owned biz advantage) in order to chase some of this newfangled computer thingies that the VA suddenly decided might help their claims process.

        The one that currently seems to be documented on slate and chalk, and with the occasional flaming torch used to illuminate the limestone caves where they store the 1010EZs.

        Seriously…

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

60 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols