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%
June 30, 2010 07:51 PM UTC
52 Comments
…used to be above incredibly stupid shit like this.
Nice work, guys.
This is clearly a joke. Obviously we’re not saying that this wackadoo is really connected to the Republican Party in any way.
It’s not the Party affiliation that makes this story bizarre — it’s the guy himself. This would be just as weird if he were a Democrat.
And you would have photoshopped a donkey on his picture.
It’s fucking stupid, IMO.
You’ve been missing a lot of really good Jane Norton threads to get all bent out of shape about something like this. How’s that “war on Islam” working out for you guys, anyway?
I said the same thing about cutting to black from smiley Jane to the sound of jet airplanes. Truthfully, I said alot more “fucking stupid.”
Fucking stupid typo.
As someone who has often shown frustration with some of the loonier types on the conservative side, I am genuinely interested in your thoughts on “Jane Norton Goes to War,” and I can’t seem to find any. I yield the floor.
The ad is dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
It’s not the first time we’ve ever agreed on something. I appreciate your honesty.
Next question: why does a silly Photoshop police sketch offend you more than Norton’s sickening abuse of 9/11 for political gain? Maybe it doesn’t, but it’s interesting how quick you were to condemn this, yet it was necessary to drag a quote about Norton’s 9/11 ad out of you. Had you not seen Norton’s ad, or would this be another case of selective outrage?
The ad is terrible.
The front-paged post of a mentally ill jackoff that registered as a Republican and tried to run for office is just stupid.
We have plenty of real issues to debate. This is like a “yer mom” joke. A fart joke.
Wait…maybe I like it now…
“the mentally ill jackoff that registered as a Republican and tried to run for office” is who/what’s stupid.
That’s a given. His jackoff-ness, though, has nothing to do with politics.
Westword’s very long post with the guy’s crazy political manifesto says different, and he was ranting about Obama. If you punctuated it correctly and put “by Cinamon Watson for Jane” across the top, who knows what could happen?
So this nut who ran for the state senate as a Republican has nothing to do with politics? Fascinating logic there!
And while we agree that Jane Norton’s “war on Islam” ad is terrible, and it makes me feel much better about you to know you think so, I can’t help but notice how many more words you’ve spent on Jackoff (R) for Senate. I’d like to explore why that is? I previously mentioned “selective outrage.” Any thoughts?
Any thoughts on how you’re drawn out of the woodwork after long absences to throw shit at me?
Talk about selective outrage. Are you really as bitter as you seem here? I hope not.
Did it ever occur to you that the way you cry butt-hurt and complain about “being attacked” is a great disappointment to me? Just once it would be nice to see you hold an argument together for two whole posts without descending into that petulant shit. I have reason to think you’re smarter than that, but it isn’t how you come across.
You seem to be fine with long windy dialogues about the University of East Anglia, but you seem to get pissed off every time the subject turns to Colorado politics. Isn’t that why we’re here?
You don’t really do politics, you just do insults.
I’m not hurt in the least, I just feel bad for you.
Have a good weekend.
People capable only of cheap red herrings and selective outrage frequently feel insulted as they lose their debates.
This does not change the fact that your arguments, when they actually pertain to Colorado politics, are feeble, and that is why you lose. Instead of acknowledging this you prefer to discuss tangents, and feign offense at the insignificant like the subject of this post. And half the people on this blog tell you what a good guy you are for it, because they want to say that they too “have Republican friends.”
Well, I’ve got lots of Republican friends, the only difference is they are not disingenuous little whiners trolling a Democratic blog. And if you really believe that this stupid little post deserves more of your indignation that Jane Norton’s call for a fucking war on Islam, as evidenced by how I had to drag the word “dumb” out of you to describe it after you went completely nuts over identifying a former GOP candidate AS SUCH – seriously, fuck you. You have no credibility.
Happy 4th to you too, though!
I hate to agree with LB, but…
Once you have defined the guy as crazy, what’s the difference what his politics are?
The guy is a nut. Republican nut, Democratic nut, it doesn’t matter. A nut is a nut.
Even I think it is funny…
Kind of hard to take this from a guy who continues to promote a lie in his signature line.
Welcome back, LB. Stay sane.
A. Not a lie. An actual quote from your guy, and I leave it in there primarily to agitate you. Mission accomplished.
B. You must have missed my mea culpa on your sig line. But good work, anyway.
Stay agitated, and have fun watching cap-and- tax go down in the flames it deserves to.
Well, OK, maybe multiple lies …
A. The whole “climate-gate” media & denier frenzy was/is all built on lies. If you want to continue to promote this, well, to each his own …
B. “Mea culpa?” Yeah. Riiiight.
(You said it in a known public forum, you must have meant it. I’m sure you can understand this interpretation, since you derive pleasure from an out of context quote from a stolen personal email communication.)
C. If I appear to be agitated, it’s because I find willful ignorance annoying. It appears you are sticking with your obstinant insistence that because there are some potential policies that you don’t like, that implies that the science must be wrong.
(Go ahead, stay ignorant. If you are just trying to pull my chain, well, I guess if you have no other form of entertainment, juvenile shit like this might feel good every now and again.)
It’s a direct quote from one of the leading AGW advocates. They’re his words, right? Not my fault they were embarrassed by their own words. Peer review shouldn’t be objective.
I apologized for my comments. Live with it.
I actually really dig you, Ardy. But bristling so hard when someone’s quoted about skewing data (then…oops! Losing it! Hee hee…) to get a desired outcome makes my ears perk up a little. I’m not an unintelligent or ignorant man, and I’d love for you to show me how these guys weren’t full of shit, and a Newsweek article is not the most unbiased source, IMO.
You didn’t do these things, but these guys obviously did, and if you want me to buy AGW, I need people willing to manipulate the system to be discredited by the other advocates.
WTF?
Here’s a pop quiz:
>Tobacco doesn’t cause cancer.
>Smokestack pollution doesn’t lead to acid rain.
>CFCs don’t destroy ozone molecules.
Q. What do these “manipulations” have in common?
A. Behind each issue you will find the same PR consultants and several of the same individuals running the denial machines. Several of these same folks are currently involved in climate change denial. THESE are the industry advocates that are manipulating the system for their own short-term financial gain.
Examples:
S. Fred Singer
Frederick Seitz
William Nierenberg
How do you explain these folks getting hired by RJ Reynolds to spread doubt about the known carcinogenic action of tobacco and then (amazingly) all are also experts in acid rain, CFCs, AND climate change?
Try this on for size:
The science behind the human influence on climate change is as rock solid as any scientific explanation.
But then again, the science behind the tactics that can be used to manipulate public perception is rock solid too.
Some people have chosen to put their efforts into these latter tactics rather than into actual climate science. They get paid really well. I don’t know how they sleep.
You are being taken for a sucker. I’m not picking on you – because in reality, WE(all Americans) are taken for being suckers. Again. And we are falling for it. Again.
Take some time to really look into it. I recommend, Merchants of Doubt, that makes all these links between all the issues I mentioned above. Reviews in Science, Christian Science Monitor, USA Today, and more.
To me, it’s conceivable that we are certainly affecting the climate with fossil fuels. It would make sense that if the word’s population has grown sevenfold in the last 100 years or so that we would make an impact.
But we’re not going back to the 19th century, and what’s been proposed so far to me looks more like social engineering and policy targeted specifically at the US economically.
Honestly? I would have been on board with the “stimulus” money being spent instead on a Manhattan Project-like effort at math and science in US schools so that hopefully we generate scientists that can help us develop a new, more efficient form of energy than fossil fuels.
I’m not skeptical because I’m unintelligent, or a rube that’s subject to the mystical spell of tobacco PR men. I’m skeptical because of three major things:
1. I think there’s manipulation going on to make climate change seem more imminent and dangerous than it is.
2. Some proponents have less than honorable motives for advancing the theory – Mugabe, Chavez et al. want it to be a system where the US pays “reparations” to poor countries for the unpardonable sin of having had an industrial revolution. In addition, I’m not a fan of people who have profited obscenely trying to frighten folks while they live high on the hog in a lifestyle they’re busy scolding us about.
3. I don’t think we could do much to reverse it, if indeed it is as much of a cause and effect relationship between co2 and warming temps, and launching the US on an economic suicide mission that Russia and China have no interest in undertaking that also probably won’t make a difference doesn’t seem wise to me.
You didn’t even try to refute or explain the Jones quote that offends you so much. If it’s such a small deal, then please explain what he meant when he wrote that email. It sure looks like he was talking about manipulating the peer review process to get favorable results.
Also, your now sig line is really representative of the AGW debate from the proponents’ side: I have something that might cast doubt on the credibility of a leading proponent, so you are now attempting to post something that you think might insult or demean me personally when I did no such thing to you. You didn’t talk about affecting peer review, Jones did..
On a side note on this already off-topic line, what’s your take on Nuclear power? To me it seems like a pretty good alternative to get us through the next century.
No worries. For what it’s worth, smoking is not linked to lung cancer. How do I know?
Recognize that style of language being used by any parties in the climate change “debate?”
Your statements 1, 2 & 3 show that you are much more under “the mystical spell of tobacco PR men” than you are willing to admit.
In short, I don’t think you are skeptical.
Skepticism about scientific explanations comes from evaluating the evidence and proposing an explanation that is consistent with more of the evidence than is the currently accepted explanation.
Denier status is earned when one challenges the veracity of the underlying science based on a general disagreement with the potential policy implications and a distaste for some of the extremist personalities involved.
I try not to dismiss you as a mere “denier” but the language and arguments you repeat put you closer to the denier refuge than to the skeptical thinker camp.
The science regarding radiatively active gases, human production of these gases, and the range of global climate outcomes that are probable has been on solid footing for decades.
Really.
Even Lyndon Johnson acknowledged this. 45 years ago.
And yes, you do insult me when you argue that scientists who have elucidated basic chemical and physical aspects about how climate responds to stimuli should be denigrated because people like Mugabe or Chavez might make political gains from it.
For example, even when all the remotely suspect data sets were removed from Michael Mann’s analysis, the ‘hockey stick’ remained.
If you are truly not a not a “fan of people who have profited obscenely trying to frighten folks” than you would understand my agitation when you repeat the talking points of exactly those people who have been working to spread doubt among the American people by spreading frightening tales about the possible, but very unlikely, short term economic consequences of rationally dealing with the human causes of climate change.(See quote above.)
Why do I ignore your taunt of the Jones’ quote? Three review panels have looked into the CRU/”whatever-gate” frenzy. All the scientists have been exonerated. What matters most is not what someone said in a moment of frustration (or juvenile pique, whatever) but what they have actually done. Was the peer review process manipulated? Do you care, or do you just want to believe the worst? WTF?)
As for my signature line, surely you aren’t claiming that my use of this quote is an inappropriate reflection of what you actually think? You wrote this in a public forum, it’s not like it was an frustrated comment in a private email that I stole.
And, while we are off topic :-), as far as nukes go, I think we need to keep every energy option on the table and evaluate each for the benefits and risks they bring to a particular problem. For example, ethanol fuels may be suitable for some place like an agricultural coop where transportation costs of oil/gasoline to the area are high, but transportation costs of distributing ethanol within the community might be low. Likewise, nukes will have a role. Not in the US desert southwest where cooling water can be expected to be in very short supply on a regular basis (even France had rolling blackouts during drought periods) but maybe the US southeast?
Enough. We’ve hi-jacked this thread for our own personal gratifications. I need to get some work done now! I’m sure we will find opportunities to continue this later. 🙂 I’ll find a way back here this afternoon.
.
like asking for balance.
.
Check the party affiliation of the woman who thought that she was being pursued by a vampire when she drove off the road into a ditch.
Hence the GOP sticker. Brilliant discourse, Govs.
Pure comedy
As a straight up, no joking news story…
Unhinged On The Right
And yes, Rick Barber is running as a Republican for Congress in Alabama, so he has at least a shot at winning, or forcing his primary opponent to tack even further hard-to-the-right to win.
I think you are hurt he’s a rightie. OK, uber-rightie.
I’d say right of Lundberg or Renfroe, and Schultheis is too frail to chase people in the mountains. Otherwise, maybe about Schultheis level.
This is fun.
And , if so, wouldn’tthat be in hyperspace?
Where the humans fight the reptilian anal probes with the help of Elvis and the grey aliens.
Somewhere past there you encounter Schultheis…
Actually, I thought Schultheis was one of the reptilian anal probes
The visuals are really getting hard to take, though. Even worse than Doug Bruce hoisting his belly folds to provide a Russian mail order bride access to the “merchandise.”
I hope nobody is eating.
Be fair. We’ve always stopped to incredibly stupid shit like this;-)
Seriously, it’s a joke. Kind of like the Yalie’s who smirked that the Unabomber was a Harvard man.
with an extra scoop of nuts for brains. The story is worth a grin unless the guy turns truly dangerous.
in a society with no mental health services and no way to make folks use them
I’ve listened to no less emphatic beliefs from any number of Glen Beck fans. He could be mentally ill or he could be a run of the mill ignorant person who overrates his knowledge and abilities. (Dunning-Kruger effect) People without a good understanding of a subject often make decisions that look crazy because of their inflated perception of their own skills, which is part of the reason people with no singing ability try out for American Idol.
He could be crazy or he might not. We’ll have to wait until more facts are established as this goes to trial.
We’d say the verdict is in on that one.
Yes, only could be. Someone can take crazy actions without actually being insane either in law or by medical definition. He may instead be “stupid”, to use a technical term.
While a professional diagnosis of insanity, without or without meeting the legal definition if this goes to trial, would not be surprise me it may not be the case.
Knowing nothing else but his reported actions in the news media, a group of sources prone to exaggeration, misstatements, and just plain getting it wrong makes judgment of the motivation at this point seem somewhat premature.
I think that’s an example of pols slipping into droll humor mode.
As to the Royal We, they probably follow the editorial writer rule: Upon winning the job, every editorial writer is required to ingest a tapeworm — at which point he or she can say “We view with alarm” and “We point with pride” and other crap with grammatical correctness.
That’s not nearly as amusing as imagining the editors in Queen Victoria dresses and carrying scepters. Editors should be issued scepters or else blunderbusses with their office!
I think the SOB is crazy too. Pols and me, that makes “we.”
Someone else reads the NYT too!
“The Anosognosic’s Dilemma: Something’s Wrong but You’ll Never Know What It Is (Part 1)”
By ERROL MORRIS
Great article. Should have been attributed…
🙂
And who knows who suffers from this fatal flaw? Did Obama overrate his own ability to clean up the mess of the previous administration? Clearly Bush had no such issues. His ability to destroy this nation on so many levels and in so many areas could not be overrated!
I thought it was funny…about as funny as the article!
about disclosing Libertad’s true idenity? Complete with picture? A violation if I ever saw one!
when he tried to bag bin Laden with a sword, so that ship has sailed.
I could see this as being one of those stories you read and say “what a nut!” and move on. But the fact he was holding people hostage and at gunpoint is actually quite frightenting. I am sure the couple were not laughing.