President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 21, 2010 03:46 PM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

“Anyone can be a barbarian.”

–Leonard Sidney Woolf


98 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread

  1. the tea baggers, and many other less inoformed voters want to protect the uber wealthy from some fantasy that they might also be rich one day. Hence, the opposition to estate taxes and the willingness of poor folks to let the wealthy have greater tax cuts than others. Under President Obama’s proposal ALL would get a tax break up to $250,000 of income. Seems pretty good to me. If I win Power Ball I’ll pay the consequences.

    1. Full state supported publicly subsidized safety net for the elite.  Dog eat dog risk for the rest. I don’t know what such a system should be called but it’s distorted way beyond being recognizable as capitalism. There is no disincentive for crazy levels of risk since the obscenely wealthy risk takers never have to worry about  suffering a dent in their personal lifestyles.  It’s win/win all the way courtesy of the little people.

  2. Some in party see Pelosi as a liability

    Reputed VP candidate Chet Edwards can’t take her anywhere these days. Leading what’s become a political policy disaster Edwards has effectively blocked Obama and Pelosi from entering Texas anywhere near the SW Dallas area. Their toxic say most.

    Blinded by her failed policy leadership Pelosi has only tightened up as many are questioning her leadership roles (win or lose).

    “To tell you the honest truth, I don’t really even have the time to pay attention to what they are saying about me,” she said. “We like the contest. So up the ante if you wish; we’re going to be victorious come November.”

    So Nancy what is the ‘honest truth’, is it more truthy then just plain ‘truth’ or more of an honest version of the truth?

    The Democratic Upside of Losing Power:

    Hickenlooper will benefit from a GOP run on the Colorado house and or senate. For Hick he’ll be able to follow Obama into the obis. Salon lays it out rather nicely.

    Most observers agree that Obama’s reelection will depend on the movement of the economy over the next two years. If it roars back, Obama will benefit politically, even if the improvement is not directly traceable to his policies. And if it continues to stagnate or worsens, he’ll be another Jimmy Carter. Fair or unfair, captaincy of the government gives a party ownership of the economy, particularly during recessions. Just ask the Republicans of 1982.

    As things now stand, Democrats, because of their control of both the White House and Congress, face wide voter unease, with Republicans posed to capitalize, even though their own brand is actually weaker and more disliked than the Democrats’. But if the GOP retakes the House, Democrats and Obama will no longer have 100 percent ownership of the government, allowing them to diffuse responsibility for the national state of affairs.

    Anyway Dems, hope that makes you feel better about losing.

    1. who wouldn’t mind seeing Chet Edwards go down in flames this election cycle.  Pelosi has done a hell of a lot more for the party and the country than has Chet Edwards.

      As to the rumors of his being on the VP short list…don’t believe it.  He’s anti-choice, anti-gay rights, anti-immigration reform, anti-union.  Quite honestly, I’m not even sure why he’s a democrat.  His being our VP nominee would be as likely as Republicans nominating former Iowa representative Jim Leach to be their VP nominee.

  3. The Markey campaign poll showed her and Gardner with 38 percent each, independent Ken “Wasko” Waszkiewicz at 5 percent and American Constitution Party candidate Doug Aden at 2 percent. The remaining 17 percent were undecided.

    The Coloradoan

    I’m still laughing … the incumbent isn’t even pulling 40% … in her own poll

    1. Gardner’s purported double-digit lead in an historic wave election year turns out to be nonexistent. And I assume this poll will be cited as often as the Magellan and other candidate-friendly polls, right? Because a poll’s a poll, right?

    1. Christine O’Donnell, the tea party candidate from lil’ ol’ Delaware, confesses to have once “dabbled into witchcraft” — a fittingly ungrammatical revelation that not only was to be expected but explains what has happened to the Republican Party. Someone — possibly you know who — has cast a spell on it, and now it has a candidate whose main contribution to political thought or, indeed, the plight of the poor is to have railed against masturbation, which she likened to adultery. Only a spell can explain such thinking.

      Only a spell also can explain how Newt Gingrich, possibly a presidential candidate, can attribute the politics of Barack Obama to “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.” Obama allegedly picked up this behavior from his father, whom he knew only fleetingly, which is to say almost not at all, and has long been dead. This, as Gingrich and others under the spell can tell you, is proof of the demonic power that can come out of the grave, enter the White House (look, the gate-crashing Salahis did it) and pervade the very body and mind of the commander in chief. It’s enough to give you the willies.

      And this Richard Cohen piece must have been completed before Newt’s call to fight liberals who want to establish sharia law right here in River City. I mean, how could he have passed that one up?


      1. Easy enough to snicker snidely when Christine O’Donnell enters the discussion, BUT

        Fact remains that she was elected by Republicans of Delaware to be the candidate of one of the two “major” American political parties for the United States Senate on a platform of opposing masturbation.

        Fact remains that Newt Gingrich, a one-time Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States and still a politician of some following (and perhaps presidential ambitions) says out loud that it’s time already to bar the introduction of sharia into U.S. judicial rulings. Presumably he judges this to be a line of thinking that will gain him and his party support.

        There is no guarantee, in the Constitution or on our jars of Jimmy Madison’s Genuine ‘Ginny Pickles (“No expiration date!), that clowns can’t take over the circus. And by the time they have done so, might we not be well down the path marked One Way Down, No Exit?

        In thinking about whether or not to nuke the mullas, who do we want to make the judgment, have the final say? The mayor of Wasilla?

        It’s not the clowns we should worry about, seems to me, but the audience that’s buying tickets to their show. Who are they? Where did they come from? What’s in their water? This isn’t usually what’s meant by “crisis in education,” or is it? Deeply troubling thoughts, perhaps worth further discussion.

        1. This latest Gingrich charge was met with cheers. People who believe that there is a real and present danger of the imposition of Sharia law here in the US will literally believe anything. Anything at all about anyone. These people are direct descendents of the type who blamed and burned witches and minorities in their midst when anything bad happened.  These are people who combine fearfulness with zero critical thinking skills. The kind who pick up the pitchforks and torches. Newt has too many IQ points to believe his own crap.  He’s just a manipulator. Very scary.  

  4. ‘Don’t ask’ vote hangs on moderates

    Gay rights and immigration reform advocates mounted a last-ditch effort Monday to overcome an expected Republican filibuster of a defense authorization bill that could lead to a repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and create a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children.

    All eyes were on a few moderate Republicans who might be able to get Democrats to the 60 votes needed to bring the bill to the floor in a vote scheduled for 2:15 p.m. Tuesday.

    Remember them Moderate Repubs there in the Senate, Mr McConnell? It just might time to stop shrieking and hooting about pure Republican’t values at the moment, because if you want to stop this, you’re going to need to place nice with them.

      1. only dare to be moderate when they have permission from their overlords. There are no moderates in the GOP when push comes to shove. Those in the middle who vote for the R in any given election because they think they are voting for the individual, not the party, are fools. The Borg will ultimately brook no independence in its ranks. To claim to be against the establishment but for the ultimate establishment, the GOP Borg, makes no sense.

          1. We may get pissed off at Webb and other Ds but there couldn’t be a Webb in the GOP.  On any really crucial vote all Rs will toe the line. And this isn’t the first time Snowe and Collins have demonstrated they will only go to the limit of their short leashes, Castle situation aside.

            The same can’t be said about Dems. It used to be the case that both parties had candidates for whom it made sense to vote as individuals and who covered a spectrum on the left/right scale. Now, in practice and when it counts most, that’s only true of the Democratic Party.  

            That nice moderate R you (not you, Arvadonian, the generic “you”) voted for because you like his/her moderate views and ability to work across the aisle will do you no more good, once elected to congress, than the fringiest rightie. He or she will knuckle under and join in the obstruction. No wonder the GOP has ordered the ban on the use of the correct form “Democratic Party”. They don’t want to remind people that the Democratic Party is so much more democratic while the GOP is all about obeying orders.

            The tea Party will either break up the GOP or take over but either way, however the GOP emerges, diversity of opinion will not be allowed except among a few ultimately impotent moderates serving as window dressing, like Snowe and Collins. And if they lose primaries to Tea Party candidates, those seats are more likely to go to the right kind of moderate Dem candidates. The only reason they have been tolerated thus far by the neo-GOP is because far righties don’t fly for Senate in Maine and they both count for head count and can be forced to heel.

            1. but….I have to admire the R’s for their caucus discipline.  

              Take, for instance, Joe Lieberman.  Lieberman spoke at the Republican National Convention.  Raised money for John McCain.  Made several appearances for John McCain and several Republican congressional candidates.  How did the democratic leadership in the senate react?  They rewarded him with the chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee.  Utterly Absurd.  

              Which brings us to today:  How will the democratic caucus respond to Jim Webb?  They won’t.  How will mainstream democrats respond?  We won’t. Instead we will moan a cry about Collins and Snowe (and to a lesser degree Brown, Voinovich and Lugar).  While I am disappointed with the 5 republicans I mentioned above, I’m not surprised, afterall, they are still Republicans.  I am, however, incensed at Jim Webb.  He is a democrat and he should know better.

              1. Big tent and independent thinking doesn’t mean that party affiliation has no meaning.

                The spectacle of Lieberman supporting the Republican candidate for president and campaigning against his own party’s pick (at the time he was still calling himself an Independent Dem as I recall) and then being rewarded with all that groveling at his feet was disgusting.  

                He should have lost every committee position and been shown the door when he threatened to leave our caucus if he didn’t get what he wanted. He wouldn’t have had any particular power as just another member of the R minority caucus so he probably wouldn’t have left the caucus anyay and if he had, so what?  A fat lot of good that magic number 60 did us with Lieberman as one of that number.  It’s not as if we needed him to be the majority, in which case there would have been some advantage. In fact that probably should be seen as the determining factor signaling Dem majority spinelessness and weakness that set the stage for the  big disappointments.  Instead of being seen as fighters, win or lose, the Dems and their President have come across as grovelers who mainly lose despite all the groveling.

                Voting your own conscience and to represent the will of the majority of your constituents against your party’s leadership is a far cry from campaigning for the other party’s presidential candidate. Party does have meaning and elected officials and party leaders ought to honor the legitimately arrived at choices of their own party voters.

                But the days when there was really diversity on both sides and neither party could be counted on to march in lock step meant that bargains could be struck and progress could be made.  Now the sole goal of the GOP is to screw Dems regardless of the consequences for the common good. In fact, the worse off the people are the better they like it because they see it as a political advantage.

                1. And that, seems to me, represents a change of huge significance to the country and to the future viability of the two-house Congressional way of governance.

                  I’ve said before, several times, that I think the Senate has outlasted its usefulness. Two hundred twenty years isn’t bad, but all living things have life spans.

                  Oddly, the Democrats are willing players in the charade, refusing to call out people like Lieberman, for example, in order to “play the game by the rules,” as if the Senate’s parliamentary rules had any relevance to any topic confronting he country!

                  Earlier, I drew a parallel between the U.S. Congress and the novels of John le Carre, specifically Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, about George Smiley spying on his own MI6 to find a double-agent planted by the notorious Karla of the Centre and driving C of the Circus mad. It was a game–not without consequences; people died, were arrested — without serious relevance to, well, to anything affecting the lives of ordinary people. It was a sort of stage show put on to rivet public attention of the Cold War, which in turn justified spending massive sums of money that went into the pockets of the M-I Complex that drove the American economy from Lend Lease onwards. And, since that didn’t have a certain ring to it, in marketing terms, it was sold under the rubric of protecting our freedom.

                  Well, that charade is long over. China is now our financier and manufacturer of preference. The USSR has vanished. What has replaced either one? Nothing! Oh, correction, sharia in the courtroom. Masturbation. Family values, and no, I don’t mean the triple giant size, half off until Oct. 31 only. Will Islam make the grade as the focus of Cold War II? Time will tell.

                    1. “…can be done by

                      [next week]

                      [next month]

                      [Dec. 31, 2010]”?

                      Better that we should fret for years over the minutiae of delaying tactics and arcane procedures, rather than address the 800-lb. gorilla… ?

                      Can’t say that I agree. The Constitution has been amended 27 times (17 if you don’t count the first 10); why not 28? Are you aware of a platoon of farmers in Yuma County itching to grab their pitch forks and spring into action when they hear the battle cry, “Save the Senate! Save the Senate!” I’m not either.

                    2. that change so radical as getting rid of the Senate is an unrealistic goal for the foreseeable future.  That’s all. Heck when’s the last time we even got a constitutional amendment ratified? I mean  the federal one, of course.

                    3. Constitution thingy.  

                      Amending it would take a vote of three-fourths of the state legislatures, most of which would be voting to give up their two seats in the Senate for virtual irrelevance in the House.

                      Of course, JO doesn’t like states either, he only wants them to be administrative subdivisions of the one big federal government, the JO Soviet.

                        I’m sure he has some pixie dust to sprinkle to do away with that reality thingy, but when I try to bring it up, he gets awfully snarly and gnarly.  On his planet, such things simply are not considered obstacles.

                    4. [Aside: Delighted to be writing on this topic, at the moment, above an ad for NRSC.]

                      Today’s version of reality: forty or 41 senators, representing a relatively small minority of rural Amurcanz (50%+1 of 20 sparsely-populated states, such as Wyoming) are able, and do, prevent any action on nation-threatening issues such as dependence on foreign oil, global warming, declining educational achievements, etc.  An institution created 134 years ago intended to protect the institution of slavery is deemed sacred, immutable, immortal. Challenges to these two realities are ruled inadmissible.

                      Will the people of California and New York –indeed, a majority of the people–stand by idly and indefinitely, suffering the consequences? Says who?

                      Yes, the document that created the Senate made it difficult to change any aspect of that document. Yes, teeny states may resist changing it to their seeming disadvantage, even while issues go unaddressed. Of course, we are now and forever shalt be bound by the procedures outlined in Holy Writ aka the Constitution. Says who?

                      IF we imagine ourselves a nation governed by the majority, and if that is UNDENIABLY no longer so, the majority will not, cannot, take corrective action. SAYS WHO?

                    5. by the strict definition of the word “can’t”. See this is why your type of lefty just makes me tired. Let’s all join the Green Party and try to talk Nader into running again while we’re at it.  Or maybe we can bring victory to Kucinich in the next Dem primary, elect him and the 60 hard core liberal senators (probably need a 90 seat Dem majority to get that many) he’d need to get anything by a filibuster attempt by the Rs. Who says we can’t? Is everyone behind me? No? Never mind.  

                    6. How did that Confederacy thing work out when folks like you decided to change our form of government without amending the Constitution.

                      Had a bit of trouble at Little Round Top, didn’t you, boy?

      2. Look, I’m sure some R amendments would be there just to embarrass the Dems, but really, ending DADT is a big f’ing deal, to quote our VP. Is Reid really wiling to give up the DADT repeal just to avoid getting embarassing R amendments?

          1. It’s pretty easy to get the best of either world, though – it passes, Democrats get the credit for ending a policy that deprived us of Arabic translators just when we needed them; it fails, and Democrats get another bludgeon to beat Republicans over the head with.

              1. He has noted that he is willing to discuss amendments once the initial “pre” cloture vote is passed and debate on the bill begins.  Republicans don’t even want to let a Defense Authorization bill come up for debate, nevermind a vote.

                And somehow Republicans never got around to asking for those amendments when the bill was in committee, either…

                Face it, H-man: Republicans want one thing – to block all potential accomplishments that Democrats might achieve in Congress while it’s under their control.  Republicans don’t care for our country, they care for their own power.

          2. b/c gay voters/activists/donors (a) are now dispirited and not feeling like voting/supporting Dem candidates helped, and (b) know full well if a DADT repeal fails now, it won’t remain alive b/c the nest Senate will have many fewer Dem seats.

              1. you’d think the Democrats would have learned their focus shold be on jobs versus treating this important issue as a gimmick.

                They’re pissing in the wind and doing a major diservice to the Gay and Lesbian community by treating the issue in such a manner.

                    1. ..and they were in the minority.

                      I know this doesn’t happen in World of Warcraft, but in the military, all that matters is what ONE guy says – The CiC. After that, if the Chairman of the JCOS says “end DADT” it’s pretty much over.

    1. …with the defeat of this ban at the hands of these two bands of ideological freaks, we’re gonna need some people to step up for their beliefs and join the military.

      After all, if this is such an imperative moral issue that requires all the power one group can muster to defeat, then clearly that same group can now enlist and serve in order to replace those SM’s they’ve worked hard to exclude.

  5. Not that a Republican had any hope in this district anyway.

    Longtime Democratic incumbent Rep. Nita Lowey’s Republican challenger this fall is a Christian conservative author and activist whose writings have frowned on inter-racial marriage and movies like “Save the Last Dance,” touted the benefits of studies linking race to IQ and said parents need to teach their kids “appropriate ethnic boundaries” for marriage and socializing.

  6. When you’re up in the mountains marveling at the aspens this weekend, you may ask yourself “How long ago did this aspen and I share a common ancestor?”

    Now you can know! (1407.8 million years ago)

    Your dog? 98.2 Mya. The crow overhead? 324.8 Mya.

    TimeTree is online and ver. 1.0 is now available for your iPhone!

    If you want to know a bit about the knowledge base, you can read about it in the journal BioInformatics. pdf here.

    If you don’t have an iPad but instead you are still using a stone tablet, there is an app for you too! Of course, it doesn’t matter what two organisms you put in, it will return “6,014 years before present.”

    1. I wonder now that we’re well into mapping the genome of all the species on Earth whether we can plot future evolutionary trends based on past evolutionary changes. If we know what each gene does and what proteins they encode and how they changed over time in the past to create new species, could we program a computer to extrapolate into the future what genetic anomalies might arise by random mutation and how these could lead to new species?

      1. only some of the genes of a few individuals of several species have been identified, and

        that phenotype is frequently the result of multi-gene interactions among themselves and the environment,and

        that there is a significant probabilistic component to determining the ratio of genotypes that end up in subsequent generations,

        I’m thinking we are quite a ways away from being able to plot genomic level evolutionary trends.

        None the less, it would be a great Sim Evolution idea!

        1. of several species, including homo sapiens sapiens. But of course you are correct on the rest. It was merely a whimsical thought experiment late at night.

          It does remind me of the scientists who put the basic ingredients found in Earth’s atmosphere in a large flask and added an assortment of energy sources (intense ultra-violet radiation, large bursts of electricity, etc) and watched as those ingredients spontaneously formed into basic building blocks of life- simple amino acids. And that happened over a fairly short period of time. The Earth had a few billion years to let things progress.

          1. maybe, but with little understanding of within species variation.

            For example, much fanfare will be made later this year when the paper “Sequencing and analysis of an Irish human genome” is published in the journal Genome Biology.

            So, the genome of some bloke is a stand-in for “The Irish Genome.” (Consider, would you be satisfied if the genome of Sarah Palin was adopted as “The American Genome?”)

            We’re at similar levels of coverage for most of the other species that have had a genome sequenced. (Without having checked, I’d be willing to gamble that over 50% of the species we have a genome sequence for are based on two or fewer individuals.)

            1. is somewhat arbitrary and goes towards humans’ obsessive need for organization (wonder what gene drives THAT behavior…). What exactly differentiates species besides us saying so? I used to think that it was the inability to breed across species, but I think certain species can bred across those lines (horses and donkeys?).

              I think this is really a case of “Mitakuye Oyasin” at a genetic level.

              1. But you are correct in your observation that humans like to name things (wasn’t that one of our first jobs in the Garden of Eden?).

                Perhaps your argument is with species classification rather than speciation?

                The simple definitions for “species” are like simple explanations for most complex phenomena – useful up to a point.

                Plants are quite adept at creating fertile offspring across species. In some species of plants, individuals may have different numbers of copies of the entire genome (rather than just 2n, but 4n, 6n, etc).

                So, the fun part is not claiming that this group of organisms is different from that, but rather trying to determine whether groups are sufficiently different to be classified as different species or genera or families or … (Actually, the really fun part would be showing that someone else’s determination is wrong.)

                So, as a more accurate, but hopelessly impractical, definition, you might try “a species is a group of individuals on a similar evolutionary trajectory.”

                As for your Lakota prayer, evolutionary scientists would agree that all life on this planet is related.

                1. species don’t know or care.

                  I think it is difficult at best to define the breaks as you mention all through the phylogeny of life on earth (and through the cosmos? Possibly a nice chunk of interstallar meteoroid plastered Earth with bits of genetic material?)

                  Enjoy the stimulating non-political, non-religious (with undertones though?) back and forth

                  1. is the process of forming new species. This is something that happens with, or without, human observation.

                    On the other hand, naming or classifying organisms into particular groups (species, genera, families, etc) is a uniquely human activity.

                    And classifying species is, to some extent, arbitrary. How different do organisms have to be in order to be different species? It’s seldom clear. (The fact that the scientific names of species are regularly revised is evidence of this difficulty – when new data is available (i.e., the “new” genetic data) species’ relationships are often revised.)

                    Certain novel characters allow for sharp divisions between groups of organism: hairs for mammals, seeds enclosed in fruits for the angiosperms, etc. Other times, group identity is based on a preponderance of data instead of the presence vs. absence of a derived character.

                    1. but the very act of defining when something ceases to be one species and becomes another is the sort of thing I was referring to. I think that organisms exist, regardless of whether we attempt to classify either the process they use to evolve or the somewhat arbitrary divisions between different branches of the evolutionary tree.

                      The fact that we created the term speciation to describe this process is what I am getting at. It is the whole idea, not just the arbitrary divisions of the classification system we use.

                    2. Speciation is something that happens. New species come into existence (and the pre-existing species likely does NOT go extinct, well at least not simultaneously).

                      The other option is each species was specially created.

                      There is evidence to support the first proposition. There is no way to test and/or falsify the second proposition.

                      That we (Humans) have difficulty classifying organisms into groups says nothing about whether groups are real and whether some groups are more closely related to each other than they are to other groups of organisms.

                      (This may be it for me tonight. Sleep well jpsandsci. I’ve enjoyed this.)

                    3. we’re discussing the meaning of words. That is what semantics is.

                      And it is still true the we created a word (species or speciation, take your pick) to define an organizational structure or the process by which things fall into that structure to describe the world as we saw and understood it.

                      You’re saying speciation happens is only true if you think that the separation between species is something concrete and specific and not arbitrary and man defined. Are life forms extraordinarily varied on Earth? Of course they are! Are the groupings something that are inherent in the life forms themselves, or are they just an overlay we’ve put on them? I say the latter.

                      And likewise, I’ve enjoyed this as well. Quite refreshing actually.

                    4. You’re saying speciation happens is only true if you think that the separation between species is something concrete and specific and not arbitrary and man defined.

                      I am not saying that only one of the above could be true.

                      > I am saying that I think there is a real world out there.

                      > I am admitting that the categories humans select may be arbitrary (and even capricious).

                      > Given this, I am unwilling to exclude the possibility that there are real groupings among organisms.

                      The difficulties that humans have in distinguishing some organisms from others may be intrinsic to the organisms we are observing. Or the difficulty may lie with the human observers.

                      I agree that in numerous cases there appears to be a smooth gradation between some species (and this is sometimes acknowledged by the use of subcategories like sub-species, or varieties).

                      However, there are distinct boundaries between some groups (those in which all the members of group A share a character that all the members of A’ do not have). Seeds enclosed within a fruit is one such character that cleanly separates groups within the Plant Kingdom.

                      We will likely learn more as we learn more about species’ genomes. What currently appear to be smooth gradations in phenotypes might actually be cleared up by distinct +/- differences in genotypes. Or, we might find that even where there appears to be quantum changes in phenotypes are the result of just slight changes in how long this or that gene is operational during development.

                      Science is cool!

                    5. and we’re really not that far apart in what we’re saying. We’re arguing over nits, but that is the funnest part to discuss. The chasms between many here on CP are much less enjoyable discussions!!!


                    6. (I’m responding in agreement that we’re not really that far apart in what we’re saying.)

                      It’s likely that most of our perceived disagreements are mere shortcomings in this mode of communication. Or, our ability to categorize our nits of disagreement? 😉

  7. You bet, check out Fact The State

    DPS’ problem is not a potential surprise payment in five years. Instead, it’s what DPS has knowingly committed itself to, and what PERA is forecasting today: an ever-escalating schedule of pension expenses that will likely see the district paying more than $100 million annually by 2013, more than $200 million annually by 2021, and nearly $400 million per year just over two decades from now.

  8. In 2 weeks W. Va. has gone from likely dem, to leans dem to toss-up.

    Now 48 Dems, 45 Republicans, 7 toss-ups.  Looks like Senate still pretty much still in play.

  9. In a poll conducted in several battleground states, including Colorado, voters are saying they don’t want to extend the tax cuts for the rich.

    In Colorado, the results are:

    Strongly Favor:  32

    Somewhat Favor:  25

    Somewhat Oppose: 10

    Strongly Oppose: 28

    Don’t Know / No Answer: 6

    That’s 57% of Coloradans in favor of letting the tax cuts for the rich expire, 38% in favor of keeping them (SEIU says 37%, so my guess is they added fractional results from both “Oppose” answers).

          1. I used the instructions from my bottle of hair blue, just so I wouldn’t forget them.  We girls have to stick together, I thought you would appreciate the tip, honey.

          2. advertising the “BJ” thing, that doesn’t help as much as you think.  Most of those men won’t stick around after . . . well, you know, don’t you?  You’ll find it wourks wonders when you start being a little more coy, and a little less brazen.

            1. ardy39, raymond1, Ralphie, Aristotle, sxp151, droll, a bunch of impersonating trolls, [redacted] Harvey, Gilpin Guy, etc. Sorry if I left your name off the list. I certainly have quite a following. All I do on here every day is battle these forces of socialism.

            2. BJ has somehow been able to get under the skin of someone who is actually probably an adult so badly that the person spends hours a day just trying to annoy BJ to the point where he’ll leave or have a Harvey-esque meltdown and get banned.

    1. I currently reside in a beige cell in a hell hole prison; some silly folks euphemistically call a “senior assisted living center.”  I am looking for a diversion until I meet my next husband; I’ve already buried four pantywaists who chose to check out on me early.   I was first attracted here after one of my friends told me about this fantastic “Colorado Poles” site; being severely nearsighted she presumed this was a place to get to know and introduce ourselves to some of the Centennial State’s local bachelor studs.  I was very disappointed at first because from what I could gather most of the participants here are hopeless ninnies.  That was until the day I saw a photograph of that dreamy Tom Tancredo fellow.  My goodness, he’s a hunky young Charlie Bronson.  I have since discovered that Tom is already spoken for, what a lucky ducky gal, and that anyhow he does not actually write messages here.  But, I do need a diversion, did I mention that already?  I still have most of the inheritance money that my third husband, Abner, left behind.  So if you still have your driver’s license, are somewhere  between the ages of sixty-five and not yet comatose, and are looking to make time with a classy, hot, rich broad who doesn’t look a day over seventy-three (last August on the third, I did turn eighty-three years), give me a shout out, OK?

      1. BS8383, you are not allowed to out anybody, including yourself (see ToU to right). If you do not use your full name and SSN in your handle, you are not allowed to reveal your full name, or occupation, or hair color, or educational failures, or the fact that you live in Colorado Springs (yeah, we know what you mean by “beige hell hole”).

        But hey, welcome to the online meeting place for Colorado residents of Polish descent.  

  10. .

    I predict that proponents come back with a proposal to open up just the Air Force to homosexuals serving openly.  

    The most compelling arguments for not repealing DADT apply mostly to the Marines and portions of the Army, but not so much to the AF.


    1. Or, even better, come up with a rule that looks good on paper, but is completely impractical in combat? Something like the current “No women in combat” rule that’s about as useless as it gets?

      We could just put “teh gayz” in similar non-combat roles. How about their own battalion-sized units?

      Or, we could just come to grips with the fact that they’re in every unit, at every level, in combat and in the FOBs.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

43 readers online now


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