Buck vs. Bennet on “Meet the Press” Debate Thread

Shake hands and come out swinging.

UPDATE: Foot arrives in Ken Buck’s mouth, take 1–being gay is “a choice,” though “like alcoholism,” birth can be “an influence.” Something tells us that’s going to be an attention-grabber.

UPDATE #2: Politico’s David Catanese:

Colorado Republican Ken Buck stood by a pair of controversial statements Sunday during a shaky nationally televised debate appearance with Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet.

Pressed by “Meet the Press” moderator David Gregory, Buck said he believed that being gay was a lifestyle choice and expressed no regrets about his four-year-old characterization of an alleged rape as “buyer’s remorse.”

…He said he used the “buyer’s remorse” term to explain how the woman regretted her relationship with the man, who was her ex-lover. “When someone decides to make a case public, the public has to understand why,” Buck said.

Bennet seized on Buck’s defense, arguing his opponent’s handling of the victim was an issue in their closely contested race.

“He just used the language again, buyer’s remorse, and as the father of three little girls, I just think that’s the wrong way to talk about it.”

0 Shares

503 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. SSG_Dan says:

    This is the simplest, most direct question that Senator Bennet can ask the Weld County Con-Man, er DA.

    Choose a subject – taxes, privatizing the VA, legislating those icky lady-parts, name it – Ken Buck has said one thing to one audience, and something else the very next day.

    All he has to do is point out that he can’t be trusted once he gets to DC, and it’s over.

    • No2Dems says:

      Mr. Bennet why do you punish Coloradoans with your voting record and your liberal ideology?

      • AristotleAristotle says:

        It’s not P-U-N-I-S-H.

        Don’t you get tired of being wrong about absolutely everything?

        • No2Dems says:

          Am I wrong solely because you say I am?  

          Do you ever get tired of losing complex arguments with your ignorance?  You support tyranny?  I do not think that the misery your liberal ideology causes on the masses can be considered a reward.

          Please Mr. Bennet reward us with higher unemployment and fewer jobs, higher taxes and bigger deficits.

          Look around everybody don’t you feel rewarded?

          • AristotleAristotle says:

            Because I know more about any topic you care to name than you do. If I say you’re wrong, you can take it to the bank.

            For example… it’s hard for government to address the problems facing us when the party most responsible for their creation (the GOP, genius) refuses to cooperate with the White House and the Dems to fix things, because they’d rather try to score points with their base than see America get back on its feet. That would be Roosevelt all over again, and the GOP was out of power for a loooooong time.

            Your party is all about the power, and dopes like you are the sheep who bleat anything they tell you to bleat. Just watch – should your little wet dream come true (and besides taking over Congress, it will also have to wait til 2012 to try to turn Obama out of office because he sure as hell isn’t going to roll over for your masters), you’ll see real wages continue to decline, the gap between rich and poor continue to grow, schools continue to fail to teach our children, and real freedoms such as privacy and the right to choose be eroded. But you won’t see the economy become strong, the national debt or deficit decline, or even see health care reform be repealed.

            I can’t wait to see what you’ll have to say then.

            • No2Dems says:

              Seriously? What is stopping the Dems from doing whatever they want?  They passed Obamacare without a single Republican vote genius!If the Republicans are so powerful right now then why didn’t they stop it

              Maybe some of the Democrats just get tired of ignoring the will of the people?  Bennet sure seems to still be ok with it!

              • DCCO says:

                Because, the Republicans are voting in lock step with each other, and democrats allow alternative points of view in the party.  

                Haven’t we learned “Just Say No” didn’t work as well as we’d hoped?  But somehow its still your whole party’s platform.

                No to taxes!

                No to spending!

                No to finding solutions to any problems while “libs are in power”! (because then it might look like democrats were fixing problems, and heaven knows its more important to make dems look bad than to pitch in and help fix the country)

                • No2Dems says:

                  The republicans voted in lockstep against Obamacare and we are still stuck with it for now!

                  If the Republicans are the party of “No” to socialism is the Democrats the party of “Yes?”

                  Why do you want to fundamentally change America? Why should the Republicans compromise with any of those changes?

                  Why are the Dems raising our tax rates, while we are financially struggling?

                  • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

                    Please list a single tax rate that is higher now than it was when Obama took office. Just one…

                    • No2Dems says:

                      They expire the clock is ticking and nothing is being done!

                    • Ralphie says:

                      The Republicans are blocking their renewal.  They are holding for ransom tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans.  The ransom?  More government giveaways to the richest 2 percent.

                      If that’s socialism, sign me up.  

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      we already knew you were a socialist. Glad to see you’re coming out of denial.

                    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

                      The Republicans are opposed to that. So tell your party to step up on that.

                      As to the over 250K crowd, your concern over the deficits has been heard and Obama wants to start reducing that deficit – which will require increased taxes as well as reduced spending.

                      You were serious about reducing the deficit weren’t you?

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      to spend all our money and then blame us for the deficit! How about we recover that money by taking it back from the little slush fund you created also known as the failed “stimulus”.

                    • MADCO says:

                      How about we recover it from the failed search for WMD in Iraq and the corresponding nation building?

                      Or the Bush tax cuts which were required by law to expire in 2010 ?

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Let’s get out of Afghanistan. Oh wait, the president just sent more troops there. And didn’t I just explain how raising taxes has always depressed revenue?

                    • MADCO says:

                      You never explained anything of the kind.

                      You made a claim, or stated as fact what is clearly speculation on your part.  

                      That’s not the same thing as explaining or stating a fact.

                      The Broncos are great and will win out to be Superbowl champs this season.

                      See? I stated it as fact, therefore, I’ve explained why the Chiefs can suck it.

                    • MADCO says:

                      Because when those cuts were enacted, the R”s jammed them through using the evil “reconciliation” which, by law, is only supposed to be used to reconcile budget issues that result in deficit reduction or are debt neutral after 10 years.

                      Of course, when CBO scored those revenue reductions (both times) they were ginormous debt increasers after 10 years. So in order to do it be reconciliation, and follow the law, Bush and R Congress had to set them to expire in 2010.  

                      Defict reduction is a good thing.  Why don’t you agree?

                    • No2Dems says:

                      Democrats are a lot like children, in so many ways, but especially this way.  The best way to get the Democrats to stop doing something that is wrong is you use it against them. That way when they are empower they change the rules.

                    • Go Blue says:

                      Identify $700 billion in the current budget to offset the cost of tax cuts for hedge fund managers.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      You created a ton of jobs, and each one of those is taxed. Raising taxes never leads to increased revenue – you just depress the economy and cut the very jobs which would be taxed.

                    • MADCO says:

                      but you are wrong.

                      WRONG.Wrong.

                      By your logic, a tax rate of zero percent should produce maximum revenue. (assuming a curve bounded by 0 and 100%)  

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Obviously, there is an optimal value. But it’s lower, rather than higher.

                    • MADCO says:

                      I never said anything about it.

                      Define “optimal.” And I’m not being facetious.  When you define “optimal,” it can be the start of rational, informed discussion about spending.  Which should be the precursor to any discussion about revenue.

                      Example – Buck (as have  others)  said he supports a balanced budget amendment. What does that mean? How would it work?

                      But since you asked what I think (never, ever happened – but sometimes other people read these posts)  I’ll say this.

                      Without having the real conversation, I think there’s significant room to cut from the federal budget, so called “funded” and “unfunded” liabilities.

                      The sequence should go something like this.

                      A) Some expenses should be publicly funded.

                      1) Which ones? Example: roads

                      2) To what level? Example: graded dirt or the interstate highway system

                      3) How to generate the requisite revenue? Example – user fees, progressive income tax, flat income tax, consumption tax,duties and tariffs, consumption tax, wealth tax, estate tax, etc and etc

                      B) Other expenses should be 100% privately funded.

                      You state with certainty that the optimal tax rate now should be “lower.”   How low?   How did you determine that? Do you mean across the board (revenue should be less than the current percentage of GDP)  or do you just mean specific rates for specific tax payers?  By “lower” do you include the possibility of a negative rate for some taxpayers (citizens)?

                      I’ll have the talk- I’ll even diary about it.

                      But you gotta come with facts and informed opinion. SImple sound bites are foolish. And in this budget environment, dangerous for the USA.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      It’s nothing like what the Dems have done. Their sequence goes like this:

                      A) All expenses should be publicly funded.

                      B) Create expensive government programs.

                      C) Sack the taxpayers to foot the bill, or just run up the debt.

                      Not very responsible. Taxes should be kept reasonably low (for example, extending the Bush cuts), especially on small businesses, which are the engines of our economy. I think all people except maybe the very poorest should pay some tax, albeit at a low rate, so that they understand the impact of raising taxes on their wallet and hence vote to keep taxes low.

                    • MADCO says:

                      “reasonably low” – define, with numbers

                      “some” tax – define with numbers

                      The sequence should go something like this.

                      A) Some expenses should be publicly funded.

                      1) Which ones? Example: roads

                      2) To what level? Example: graded dirt or the interstate highway system

                      3) How to generate the requisite revenue? Example – user fees, progressive income tax, flat income tax, consumption tax,duties and tariffs, consumption tax, wealth tax, estate tax, etc and etc

                      B) Other expenses should be 100% privately funded.

                      You state with certainty that the optimal tax rate now should be “lower.”   How low?   How did you determine that? Do you mean across the board (revenue should be less than the current percentage of GDP)  or do you just mean specific rates for specific tax payers?  By “lower” do you include the possibility of a negative rate for some taxpayers (citizens)?

                      I’ll have the talk- I’ll even diary about it.

                      But you gotta come with facts and informed opinion. SImple sound bites are foolish. And in this budget environment, dangerous for the USA.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      A reply should not repeat a previous post.

                    • EmeraldKnight76 says:

                      The guy who has NEVER had an original comment let alone an original thought.

                      Priceless.

                    • MADCO says:

                      and various connectors and punctuation. Numbers, man.

                      Surely you’ve heard of numbers.

                      It’s ok if you don’t want to do numbers. I can dod the budget expense/revenue source discussion without them.

                      But you should admit you got no numbers, at least that way we can know you’ll always say “lower” no matter what the tax rate is, was or could be.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      I’ll just whip out the federal budget plan I have in my back pocket. I would need to talk to the various heads of federal departments to come up with specific numbers. But I was talking about general concepts that should be applied.

                    • MADCO says:

                      lower is the correct choice.

                      I don’t know how your dept. works, but in my dept we could call that MSU, or gut instinct.  or even ideological blindness.

                      Great.

                      And I appreciate the compliment- but those “general concepts” were the ones I applied.

                    • Ralphie says:

                      Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you can win an argument with an imbecile.

                      Not just win, but smoke him.

                      What have you proven?

                    • MADCO says:

                      And recently I got emailed offline from a friend of a friend who happens to have a more than passing interest in these kind of posts.  And she/he pointed out that when we let it go  – the lurkers (she/he is one) often fall back on who and what they know.  And that ain’t me, and it most of us and it ain’t anything other than conservative politics, ala “youthful”  Weld  & Larmier county style.

                      I said when I had that afore mentioned combination. I’d hang in there not for the volleyball, but for her/him.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      Why should total revenue be a function only of the tax rate (and not other totally independent factors such as total employment, the Dow Jones average, and Federal Reserve interest rates)?

                      If you assume total revenue is a function of only one variable, why should it be concave down? Why should it have only one maximum? Why should it even be continuous?

                      If you assume it looks like a parabola (as though the only function which is zero at two points is an inverted parabola), then with only a few data points, why should you assume you know the entire shape of the curve (to be able to say we’re above the maximum)?

                      Every assumption of the Laffer curve is not just wrong but indefensible. An honest mathematician knows this. Why don’t you?

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      First of all, it is a continuous curve, as most things in real life are. Otherwise, at what tax rate would revenue be discontinuous? There isn’t one.

                      If it were concave down, the optimal rate would still exist, but it would be 0 or 100. Unless you want to argue that one of those is optimal, your argument doesn’t work.

                      If indeed there were two maximums, it is still likely that one is greater than the other (in fact the probability of them being exactly the same is 0), in which case one situation is better than the other.

                      It doesn’t have to be a parabola to have a maximum and minimum. The Laffer curve is a whole lot better of an approximation than an upside down parabola.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      Or an approximation? Can you draw one?

                      Go look in your calculus textbook to see what “concave down” means.

                      The Laffer curve is discontinuous at 50%. The reason is that the entire notion of the Laffer curve depends on psychology (if taxes were 100%, nobody would work because they wouldn’t feel like it). Psychologically human beings would tend to say “Oh no, my taxes are at 50%! That sucks!” Whereas at 49.9% it still seems substantially better psychologically even if it’s mathematically irrelevant. It’s the same psychological reason that so many prices are $9.99 and so few are $10.00 (another real-life discontinuity!).

                      Personally I think to the extent there is a Laffer curve (i.e., if you can ignore real life effects), it’s discontinuous at 100% and strictly increasing otherwise. The question is whether tax rates will make most people work harder or not. Why do average people (not business-owners, but employees) work overtime? Because they need more money. If they don’t really need the money, most people would rather stay home with their families after working a full week. So from a purely rational-incentive viewpoint, increasing taxes should increase the hours that someone works, hence increasing revenue even more than the flat rate would predict.

                      The only time that’s not true is when the government is taking literally everything, which means at 100% taxation there is literally no economic incentive to work. But even when the tax rate was 90% for the highest earners, people still got really rich. So to the extent there’s a tax rate above which people will actually work fewer hours, it’s more than 90%.

                      There are only two types of people who believe in the Laffer curve: those who have no understanding of mathematics or economic incentives or psychology, and those who are lying. Which are you?

                      Of course it is impossible to confirm this

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      If it were concave down, then there would be exactly one optimal point, just like I said. So you’re advocating that we raise taxes to make people work harder to get money? That’s a step away from outright theft – soak the poor! And, at some point they would just give up and use the “safety net”. Maybe you should rethink that one.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      You’re putting words in my mouth because you can’t coherently respond to what I said in an honest way.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      You can’t spin your way out of this one.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      And soon the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which Dems are pushing for, will raise tons of rates.

                    • DCCO says:

                      Do it for the kids…

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Why not just ban cigarettes altogether? While you’re at it, might as well tell them what they can and can’t eat too.  

                    • CJ says:

                      Oh, wait, I don’t smoke…

                      Not sure what that has to do with the question asked by DavidThi.  

                      Be my guest, smoke as much as you want.  Eat poorly, too.  

                  • DCCO says:

                    First, I find it interesting that you assume I/we dems want “fundamental change”, as though having hope that we can work together to solve problems though we disagree would be a fundamental change in how our country is supposed to work.

                    Barring that though, I’m a big fan of capitalism.  I just think that capitalism is built on a system where people are incentivized to take calculated risks for profit.  That risk could be taking a new job, starting a new company, investing in a company, and a host of other things.  The problem comes about where if you lose or come in second best (ie your company fails, you lose your job, or your investment tanks) that you have a likely result of losing your healthcare, losing your house, and having no way to feed your family.  So I think we need an economic system that recognizes what happens in those situations and compensates for them (funding unemployment, affordable healthcare, and other social safety nets).  To put a finer point on it – I think the only way that capitalism can work is if we have those safety nets in place.

                    Even Henry Ford recognized that his very capitalistic company could not succeed if only the very rich could buy his product.  So what did he do?  He paid his employees enough so that they could buy his product.  He also made cheaper cars so people could buy them.  

                    We keep wondering why the economy is having problems without realizing that we built a consumption based economy, and then over the last several decades income inequality has increased so much that a sizable portion of the population can longer afford to consume the items we produce.  

                    Income is always in a constant state of redistribution (when I buy something I distribute it to a company, when I pay rent I distribute it to my landlord, when I pay taxes I distribute it to society)so the idea that we can put into place policies that protect a large middle class is hardly some wild eyed wealth distribution socialist platform.

                    Maybe I do want to fundamentally change America.  I want it to be a place where you are rewarded for hard work (min wage/poverty do not count as a reward), where you don’t have to worry that you can’t see a doctor if you lose your job or have a job that doesn’t offer health care, where we recognize that services like education cost money and are willing to fund them, and where someone isn’t seen as being less of a person if they aren’t as well off as someone else.  Which part of that fundamental change are you opposed to?

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Although Obama was the one who said he wanted to “fundamentally transform” America. We do need to get away from a consumption based economy, which is why a fair tax system which rewards saving instead of spending would be so good. It would focus our economic activity on things we need instead of things we merely want.

                      Safety nets are useful to a point, but they can easily get out of control. Who’s going to bother taking the risk of creating a new company which provides jobs or going to work if they can just get benefits from the government? And then our whole economy suffers because no one is working, or at least not working very hard.

                      As to the distribution of wealth, why do you think the rich earn money? Just to sit on it and laugh at everybody else? No, they want to earn money so they can trade it for something of value. If only there was a little bit of certainty in the market, they would get busy using that capital to invest in up and coming companies, which creates jobs. THAT is the true way to redistribute wealth without hurting the economy, because people are working and contributing to the GDP in exchange for that money.

                    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

                      What I want is increasing demand and the only way to get that is to reduce unemployment. So if the government wants to raise my taxes 10% and then uses that money for a ginormis stimulus bill (capital expenditures and keeping state employees employed) and a G.I. Bill for the unemployed – sign me up!

                      Because I’ll make more in increased sales in a booming economy than I’ll lose in increased taxes.

                      But if you want to reduce my taxes, reduce spending, and throw a bunch of additional people out of work (public & private sector), then you are telling me to save my money because I have no one to sell to – the market will decrease.

                      Since you live on the public tit you don’t understand this. But as a business owner I do, you have to invest to make money. And taxes that go to increasing employment, advancing the educational level of the workforce, and improve the public sphere (roads, parks, etc) pay off many times over.

                      There are many investments one makes as a business owner. Spending within the company is just one. If you actually understoof how a business operates, you would know that…

                    • Ralphie says:

                      Making capital available to businesses will result in more immediate prospects for expansion and job creation.

                      Say you wanted to grow your business and needed a new building to house it in, extensive new computer hardware, new manufacturing equipment, a new assembly line (latter two not your business, David) or other equipment.

                      Would you wait and save up your tax cuts or would you get a loan?

                      Most people would get a loan.  Trouble is, banks are sitting on money and people aren’t getting loans.

                      Freeing up capital is the key to creating jobs right now, especially among small businesses which are the ones that create most of the jobs.  Tax cuts?  Well, you have to be making money to pay taxes.  So right now, not so much.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Because they know the government is going after their money, and they have to save enough to survive.

                    • If you’ve got either.

                      Banks don’t make money by sitting on it, nor do they lose money by circulating it to make a profit.  If taxes go up, only their profit margin goes down, not their total cash holdings.

                      Banks are holding on to their money mostly because they, like many in this country, are being more cautious with their investments now.  They don’t want to take the risks they had been taking lending out to marginal debtors.  Additionally, many banks must now hold on to a large portion of their cash because they must maintain a minimum ratio of real funds to deposits; the derivatives crash caused by greed as well as lax regulation and oversight has left many banks short of funds.  Banks only want to invest in high-grade returns right now as a result.  The small business stimulus package passed by Democrats just before the Congressional recess was designed to increase the appeal of lending to small business.

                      It all goes back to that one principle, BJ – stagnant money doesn’t generate returns.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      You are absolutely correct. The question is why Democrats are trying to impose more regulations and higher taxes to prevent business from loaning money right now.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Of course most business groups support Obama’s agenda. Oh wait. I seem to recall a little bit of a dust up between Obama and the Chamber of Commerce. Not to mention the NFIB endorsing Buck.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      Giant corporations, represented by the Chamber of Commerce, oppose Obama and support Republicans instead.

                      Why do you suppose that is?

                    • ThillyWabbit says:

                      For the purposes of the Republicans numbers on tax policy, they include “small businesses” such as Fidelity Investments, Koch Industries, and giant government contractor Bechtel:

                      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39

                       

                    • MADCO says:

                      That’s just a …. twisted Rgument.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      They didn’t endorse Bennet. The CoC opposes Obama because they support jobs and the economy, dummy.

                    • Ralphie says:

                      Which democrats have they endorsed lately?

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      But you do make a good point, why would small business ever endorse Dems?

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      You just HAVE to repeat a good line that was used on you, no matter how far from the realm of reality it falls, don’t you?

                    • jpsandscl says:

                      that there are some posts of yours I agree with David.

                  • AristotleAristotle says:

                    if the ‘pubs had attempted to work with the Dems on health care reform. Quick, name one good-faith counter-proposal the ‘pubs came up with during the health care summit, or at any other time it was being debated.

                    Can’t think of any, can you?

                    You’re probably a young twerp with no memory of when the parties actually worked together on legislation. Those of us with longer memories know that the party out of power has never just been so steadfast in refusing to get anything done, all in the name of avoiding any and all responsibility in order to try to blame everything that’s wrong on the party in power.

                    The Dems may be in power, but the minority can still hamstring things if they want to. If the GOP were acting in good faith, they’d do things the right way – negotiate, propose their own solutions, and demonstrate their loyalty to the people by trying to help govern. You know, like the Dems did with Bush.

                    I notice you had nothing to say to the rest of my comment. I’ll take that as a silent capitulation.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      TORT Reform. That was easy. Try thinking a minute before you assume things.

                      The party in power has never been so hell bent on destroying our country. If Obama had acted in good faith, they might have worked with him, but he didn’t. He said “we won” and basically gave them the finger.

                      I’m sorry that I don’t have 20 fingers and 3 computer screens, it’s hard keeping up with all your (people on Pols’s) requests for comment.

                    • Froward69 says:

                      Obama does act in good faith. Just Because you talking points say He hasn’t Does not make it so.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      He’s a hard core leftist, Marxist, socialist guy. Sorry, that’s reality.

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      in an absurd manner again.

                      TORT reform was not part of the HCR discussion, silly boy. But I do seem to recall someone talking about state lines, so I’ll let you have that crumb. But not before pointing out what a tiny, insignificant counterproposal it was. Tends to underscore my point that the ‘pubs did nothing to seriously debate HCR even more, actually.

                      So, who is it that needs to think for a minute? You.

                • bjwilson83 says:

                  Republicans are the only thing standing in the way of complete economic meltdown.

          • SSG_Dan says:

            Here:

            http://www.usatoday.com/money/

            Even though dems are complete candy-asses about promoting it, the stimulus (dems) and TARP (repubs) kept the country from sinking into the Greatest Depression – the American Enterprise Institute said so:

            http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonath

            Yes,the deficit is freakin huge. But the Repubs gave it a head start by drunken out-of-control spending for two wars, and putting it off the books. We’ve been in deeper debt before, like when the deficit was 106% of the GDP to win World War II.

            http://www.economist.com/blogs

            http://www.economist.com/node/

            Doing nothing was not a sane option – maybe for the Republican’t Party, which advocates it all the time.

            New Talking points, plz…

            • No2Dems says:

              Thats why we are getting rid of the old repubicans and replacing them with people who have more solid conservative principles. (No thats not a misspelling)

              So why do we have to raise them?  Why can’t we cut spending?

              • Ralphie says:

                we are getting rid of the old repubicans

                Insurance company death panels?

                Death camps?

                Do tell.  I smell a sig line here.

              • MADCO says:

                Be specifc – which spending?

                We all agree on “waste”.  What else?

                Farm subsidies?

                Student loans?

                TA grants?

                COLA for SS recipients?

                VA medical?

                defense?

                SS?

                fixing the donut hole?

                Be specific.

                • sxp151 says:

                  There’s like $5 trillion worth of waste in the federal budget. If we cut all that waste out, then we could still spend everything we need on important things like farm subsidies to conservatives, Social Security checks to conservatives, Medicare coverage for conservatives, and highway spending for conservatives, and still have $3 trillion left every year to pay down the debt. Vote Republican, because all numbers are equal if you wish hard enough!

                • No2Dems says:

                  You know the fat cat paper pushers that sit on their fat asses all day long doing nothing making six digits!  Small percentage but a place to start.

              • sxp151 says:

                That’s John Boehner’s promise to America! They got rid of all the Republicans except the ones who screwed everything up.

                • butterfly says:

                  Or something.  You would think that they would have looked at 2000 to 2008 and learned at least a couple of things that they would change for the better.

                  Nope.  We’re not going to be any different!

                  The first time I say that video I thought that it was just a stunning statement.  They are as bad as Wall St. and the big banks who still will not take any responsibility for anything.

                  Remember the Wall St guy who went to Harvard at the same time as the President who thought he had the President in a corner… only to decide that the President went after Wall St with a stick to going after Wall St with a baseball bat.  I think that is what he was saying after the CNBC question with the President.

                  http://www.cnbc.com/id/1584023

                  The speech that President Obama mentions that he gave to Wall St, on Wall St premises in 2007 would be interesting for people to read.  President Obama was warning of the collapse that came in Sept 2008.

                  http://www.barackobama.com/200

  2. robertbq says:

    2 minutes from MTP debate airing here in Boston. Let the Buckpeddling begin.  

  3. Ah Choo says:

    After all…he clearly believes a woman can choose to be raped.  

  4. ThillyWabbit says:

    And Ken Buck just told them they chose to be gay and that being gay is like alcoholism.

    This idiot is not ready for prime time.

  5. Aaron says:

    So Ken, how old were you when you decided to be attracted to women?

    • bjwilson83 says:

      Do two men look like they were born to be attracted to each other? Evolutionarily speaking (and I know you guys love to talk about that), what purpose would same sex attraction have?

      • ClubTwitty says:

        You make my head hurt.

      • EmeraldKnight76 says:

        Same sex pairing happen in nature all the time. The theory is, IIRC, as communities become overpopulated the SS pairings happen to control the population. The theory has been expanded to the human species and overpopulation to explain why we seem to have more homosexuals year after year.

        My personal belief is that it’s a combination of the overpopulation theory as well as it being more acceptable to be out.

        Also, if I remember my christian dogma correctly, animals don’t have the God given ability to know good/evil. So it’s generally accepted that everything they do is according to God’s plan. This leads me to believe that being gay is all part of His plan.

        • bjwilson83 says:

          God distinctly says that being gay is not part of his plan.

          • EmeraldKnight76 says:

            We know every detail in His plan? I assume you’re referring to the Bible in all it’s glorious inaccuracies and hypocrisies?

            Was the world dealing with overpopulation when the Bible was written? When He set down His laws it was important for man to procreate and populate the Earth. Now we’ve overpopulated. Do you believe God didn’t have a way to control population on a large scale?

            To control overpopulation our loving merciful God can either kill millions and millions of people every few years or he can control it through loving same sex relationships. I chose to believe He would choose to use love not death.

            • bjwilson83 says:

              It’s called the Bible. Read it sometime, it is accurate. We have not overpopulated whatsoever. Your “God” is obviously not the same one found in the Bible, who completely forbids same sex relationships.

              • Aaron says:

                “It’s called the bible. Read it some time, it is accurate.”

                Now I know for sure that you must be doing Colbert-style satire.

              • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

                Your “God” is obviously not the same one found in the Bible, who completely forbids same sex relationships.

                • bjwilson83 says:

                  Leviticus 18:22

                  ” ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

                  Of course, we are under a new covenant so the penalty is not the same; there is forgiveness. But it is still a sin. See, for example, Romans 1.

                  • AristotleAristotle says:

                    that Romans was written by Paul, not God, don’t you?

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

                    • Republican 36 says:

                      burned epileptics at the stake because, based on their interpretation of the Bible and Christian principles, such people were possessed by evil demons. We now know that seizure disorders are caused by the misfiring of electrical pulses in the brain. In other words the Bible and the interpretation given it was just plain wrong.

                      The scientific research in genetics that suggests gays are gay when born (although not yet dispositive) may very well show the Christian Bible is wrong again.  

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      for example by having over production of testosterone, does that make murder ok? No, it doesn’t.

                    • Republican 36 says:

                      Your response is an excuse not a retort. I do not know of any scientific, let alone genetic studies, that holds humans are genetically predisposed to violence. However, if that were true, you’ve proven my point. Besides that, murder is a crime by one person aginst the life of another. Being gay is not a crime and harms no one.

                      On the flip side, what your advocating is substituting religion for scientific facts. If we followed your prescription, we would still be burning those afflicted with seizure disorders at the stake just because religious authorities, regardless of how uninformed they might be, interpreted the Bible that way. Another example, is the old religious belief that Earth was at the center of the universe. Religious authorities fought against the reality that Earth revolves around the sun for hundreds of years, yet, in the end, science prevailed. The Bible is not infallible and some of the interpretations religious leaders have espoused over the centuries have been proven wrong based on objective scientific fact.

                      Religion always fights against instances where science disproves a religious belief because religious leaders always take the position that the Bible is infallible and, if they admit error, they believe they are admitting God was in error. I don’t think that is the case but many religious leaders believe that. What they should focus on is the fact that a human being, known as  a prophet, got it wrong centuries ago or added a human value into one of the books of the Bible to reflect his values rahter than absolute religious ones.  

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      The authors of the Bible made sure to include that bullshit so the gullible would buy the whole thing, rather than suss out the good from the bad.

                      Sucker.

                  • Ralphie says:

                    However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

                    (Leviticus 25:44-46}

                    At least you’re honest, BJ.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      That was a specific direction to the nation of Israel at that time, as indicated by the text talking about the foreigners living among them. And it was because of the wickedness of the nations around them who had turned to child sacrifice, etc.

                • bjwilson83 says:

                  I Corinthians 6:9-10, see below.

              • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                To you oh men I call, and my cry is to the sons of men.  O ye simple ones, learn prudence.

                Proverbs 8:5

          • VoyageurVoyageur says:

            Or was that just a hoax, like evil-lution and Neanderthal man?

          • AristotleAristotle says:

            … but we are to be bound by REASON when it comes to crafting law and policy. Since we can’t reasonably prove God’s existence, let alone the Christian God’s existence and not the Hindu deities for example, it ALL must be left out.

            I noticed you decided not to answer DaftPunk’s challenge on biology. Why is that? (Please, no one else jump in here to beat up on beej. I want to see if he has the stones to answer DaftPunk.)

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          we seem to have more homosexuals year after year.

            I suspect it’s simply that as oppression, even murder, against gays is reduced, more of them come out of the closet.

             The same thing happened in ancient greece, where same sex attraction wasn’t punished.  Some military units, like the Sacred Band of Thebes, even encouraged it to build unit cohesion.

        • Half Glass FullHalf Glass Full says:

          Just ignore the hater.

        • PERA hopeful says:

          Same sex love is against God’s plan, don’t you know.

          • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

            First it is 2 comments buried down in Leviticus and it’s not clear if they are concerned with standard relationships or it’s tied into worshiping false gods.

            Second, it has no prohibition against lesbian relationships. None.

            Third, Leviticus prohibits a number of other things that I don’t see conservatives up in arms about. He also allows slavery. Cherry-picking from the bible is hypocritical.

            • VoyageurVoyageur says:

              BJwilson LOVES slavery.  That’s why he supports Ken Buck’s plan to repeal the 14th amendment.

            • PERA hopeful says:

              Virtually all of them are ignored by the wing nuts, except for this one.  I see that Beej admitted, “Of course, we are under a new covenant so the penalty is not the same; there is forgiveness. But it is still a sin.”  Just like greed is a sin, and gossip, and lying, and blaspheming, and sloth, envy, wrath, and the rest.  All equally wrong; all conveniently ignored by the wing nuts, except for homosexuality and abortion.

              The same God forgives us all of all our sins.  And the same God told us not to judge others.  And the same God didn’t say a darn thing about gay marriage.  Nor did that God make marriage a one-man-to-one-woman thing, at least not in the Old Testament.  (And I suspect that the New Testament era one-man-one-woman marriage idea was more a product of Roman law than of God’s law, but I don’t know and am too hungry to go look it up.)

              In other words, big surprise: Beej is full of shit.  I MAY be full of shit; Beej IS full of shit, and that is the difference between us.

              • bjwilson83 says:

                And there are plenty more verses:

                1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

                The Greek terms translated “male prostitute” and “homosexual offender” refer specifically to those on the giving and receiving end, respectfully.

                Then of course there is Sodom and Gomorrah.

                Etc.

        • PERA hopeful says:

          Same sex love is against God’s plan, don’t you know.

        • PERA hopeful says:

          Same sex love is against God’s plan, don’t you know.

        • PERA hopeful says:

          Same sex love is against God’s plan, don’t you know.

      • Aaron says:

        “Do two men look like they were born to be attracted to each other?”

        I guess that depends on who were talking about. If Lance Bass and Bruce Villanch got together? Maybe not so much.

        Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka? Hells yes. They look great together.

      • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

        You are best ignored, but you asked a question about which I have some expertise (BS Anthropology/Zoology from a top ten University Anthro dept, with a year at the graduate level), so I’ll answer your question.

        What is at play is the concept of inclusive fitness:

        inclusive fitness is the sum of an organism’s classical fitness (how many of its own offspring it produces and supports) and the number of equivalents of its own offspring it can add to the population by supporting others.

        Each of us is a 50/50 blend of our parents’ genes.  How those genes are expressed may vary depending on many factors.  Each of our siblings, while also a 50/50 blend, has a different 50%.  In aggregate, evolution doesn’t care if you or your sibling reproduces, and your fitness is almost as high if your siblings reproduce as if you did.

        Human reproduction is expensive.  Gestation is long, pregnant women are physically challenged, and human neonates are helpless for an extended period of time.  This has a lot to do with the compromise between large brains and bipedal locomotion (secondarily atricial.)  

        In times of plenty, we may be able to breed to the capacity of the reproductive cycle.  In times of environmental stress, it may take more than two parents can provide to rear their children to reproductive maturity.  This is where individuals who engage in non-reproductive pair-bonding (homosexuality) can increase the inclusive fitness of their genes.

        Supporting evidence for this is the fact that the lower you are in the birth order, the more likely you are to be gay.

        Questions?

    • parsingreality says:

      When Diane Ducey and I held hands in kindergarten and all the other kids laughed, all I knew was that it felt good!

      That was 59 years ago and the ghost of Diane still talks to me.  

  6. robertbq says:

    Is ripping Buck right now. Read almost entire Denver Post editorial that ran Friday endorsing Bennet and showed Buck squirming while he read it.  

  7. MADCO says:

    Bennet wore a tie and combed his hair – just like he does when he’s at work.  I’ve seen him at several campaign events – jeans and open collar.  I’ve heard some complaints about it – it never bothered me.

    Buck gives the impression that he’s surprised that common questions in the mainstream American discussion need answering or explanation.

    David Gregory, to Buck: In a debate recently you expressed  support for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell/ Do you believe being gay is a choice?”

    Buck: I do.

    Gregory: Based on what?

    Buck: confused, and a little annoyed by the question – “Based on what? …. based on you can choose your partners.”

    Hmm, Ok- the logical follow up quesiton wasn’t asked:

    Mr Buck you apparently are a straight man, when did you choose to be straight?

    Buck called the alleged rape “buyer’s remorse” again. And said he doesn’t regret the way he talked to the woman nor that he described it as “buyer’s remorse.”  If I valued elected officials who respect women, I wouldn’t vote for Buck. Oh wait- I do and I won’t.

    • He’s a regular guy that respects everybody until given reason not to do so.

      His casual dress doesn’t bother me.

      • MADCO says:

        I’m the guy complaining for shorter answers, not more formality.

        • It drives me crzay when I hear the stimulus has failed.

          If BAC or Citi had gone down people would have to commit armed  robbery at the  grocry store for beans and rice. The cash woold be worthless.

          No auto industry would destroy the middle class in Michigan, and impact parts  houses, dealerships and more jobs.

          Buck has nothing to offer but “spending cuts’

          Does he want to cut the military? No

          Medicaid ? Yes.

          His statements of make the states pay for federal cuts is spurious..

          New Federalism in Colorado can not work with TABOR in place.

            • We avoided a new great depression brought about by the Bush/Cheney disaster by assuring the stability of the banking industry,

              Believve me I know personally how tough the job market is at this point in time.

              Still, without a stimulus social chaos would have transpired.

              Colorado Springs is not the ideal city to live in. Reduced transportation, reduced police protection, reduced lighting and increased crime to name a few of the “benefits” of eliminating government intervention to resolve a Republican formed crisis.

              • No2Dems says:

                By your thinking all the money that we spent was a good thing and has helped. Right?

                So if 1.5 trillion dollars in debt is a good thing, then 3 trillion dollars in debt is twice as good?

                What evidence do you have that stimulus money has prevented anything?  None just the typical liberal fact of because I said!

                • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

                  from Reuters

                  The massive stimulus package boosted real GDP by up to 4.5 percent in the second quarter of 2010 and put up to 3.3 million people to work, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday.

                  CBO’s latest estimate indicates that the stimulus effort, which remains a political hot potato ahead of the November congressional elections, may have prevented the sluggish U.S. economy from contracting between April and June.

                  Economists surveyed by Reuters expect that revised numbers due out on Friday will show that the economy grew at an anemic 1.4 percent pace during that time period – less than the boost of at least 1.7 percent that the stimulus provided, according the CBO estimate.

                  • No2Dems says:

                    How many shovel ready jobs did it create?  You know the term used by Obama on what the stimulus money was going to be spent on?

                    0?

                    • SSG_Dan says:

                      …enough of us have refuted your claims, YOU need to step up and provide something back up yours.  

                    • No2Dems says:

                      In an interview with the NY Slimes Obama is quoted as saying that Shovel Ready jobs do not exist!  Why do I have to spoon feed everything to you drones.  Go get it yourself or call me a liar I don’t care.  Don’t tell me what to do. I am not trying to convince you deadheads, I can care less if you believe me.

                    • SSG_Dan says:

                      If you’re not prepared to back up your claims, go find another site to post on.

                      Right now, you’re just a right-wing parrot repeating the same tired talking points.  

                    • No2Dems says:

                      mention that the NY Slimes interview where Obama admits shovel ready jobs do not exist.

                      All I have done is presented a differing opinion than yours and you try to run me off of the site like you own the damn thing.  I thought the left is always preaching tolerance?

                      I do not think you get the message.  You lefties do not have free rein to post garbage on these public sites anymore.  The silent majority is awake and will not tolerate your false propaganda.  You make promises to people you cannot keep.  You deceive with your lies.  Your economic and political platforms have failed all over this world throughout time.    

                    • sxp151 says:

                      Is that intentional? Are you doing a parody thing here? Are we going to hear about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion soon from you?

                    • I responded to you earlier clearing up your mistaken impression of the Times interview.  Your continued use of it in a misleading manner makes you a Big Fat Liar.

                    • EmeraldKnight76 says:

                      Bravo! You have the raving lunatic rightie down perfectly. I’m impressed. Is it hard not to break character?

                    • Shovel-ready jobs are jobs which already have plans, estimates, schedules, etc. and are just looking for cash to implement.  Most states have a number of these ready to go for next year’s budget.  We’ve been at the stimulus now for more than a year, though, and shovel-ready jobs are no longer readily available – while we’ve paid out money for the actual construction, we haven’t paid for the increased planning capacity needed to compensate for the faster constructions schedules.

                      Why is it conservatives like yourselves, not willing to debate in the realm of reality, are so quick to resort to taking comments out of context to make your point?

                    • No2Dems says:

                      Any other educational deficiencies I can assist you with?  If I am quoting a Democrat president doesn’t that make me a Democrat parrot?

                      During our hour together, Obama told me he had no regrets about the broad direction of his presidency. But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” He realized too late that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” when it comes to public works.

                      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10

                    • In that, I think Obama is over-simplifying.  But the fact that not all of the money allotted for construction projects in ARRA has been spent (or even allocated) I think highlights just how deficient our public infrastructure maintenance has become.  I think he is referring to his inability to move those funds directly to jobs as quickly as he believed, due to that shortcoming – for which we’re all responsible via our call for a smaller (more dysfunctional) government.

                      We have tens of billions of dollars in road and facilities maintenance in our park system alone, but since the parks never have the money to actually carry out those projects, not formal “ready to go” plan has been created for them.  Same for our roads, which are in need of serious maintenance – maintenance President Obama obviously understands given his recent call for $150b for a massive (yet still not sufficient) infrastructure maintenance and modernization project.

                    • No2Dems says:

                      due to that shortcoming – for which we’re all responsible via our call for a smaller (more dysfunctional) government.

                      What is this?  When has a Democrat ever called for a smaller govt or am I just misreading this?

                    • we invested a vast amount of money and manpower in to the task.  Same for any number of other things that government has wrought which I think we all agree were great investments.

                      But Republicans have tried downsizing government until they can drown it in the bathtub, and Democrats have not been good at stating the need for the proper functioning of government and the maintenance of its works.

                      You also might want to note that Democrats reduced spending this year, with zero help from Republicans who want to add another $700b to our debt by giving a new round of tax cuts for the rich.  And a Democratic President is the only President in our recent history to run a surplus.  (A task he began and was on his way to achieving before the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress I’ll add, to head off the inevitable “Republicans did that”.)

                      Our recent history shows exactly who is the fiscally responsible party, and the GOP isn’t it.

                    • Go Blue says:

                      No one buys the bullshit you’re selling. We all know the Recovery Act prevented a second Depression. More jobs could have been saved or created if it hadn’t been for Republican efforts to kill the bill. Let’s not forget, they slashed the infrastructure spending portion to include more taxes cuts (Snowe and Collins).

                      Since that time, Senate Republicans have sat on nearly 500 bills passed by the House to boost our economic recovery.

                      But why let the facts get in the way of your dumbass Glenn Beck like world view.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      First it was “blame Bush”; now that he’s gone, it’s “blame Republicans”. Despite the fact that Democrats control both houses of congress and the presidency. If they had taken just a little bit more of a centrist tone and not had the “we won, you lost, get over it” attitude they might have been able to get some more of their bills passed.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Dems were all in favor of the war after 9/11. It wasn’t until later that it became a politically useful football to them.

                    • jpsandscl says:

                      it’s been repeatedly pointed out to you that any support was based on trumped up intelligence and threats of “mushroom clouds” if we didn’t act.

                      All of which has been completely refuted since then. Some throw a different straw man next time why don’t you.

                      Oh, I forgot who I was ranting at. You’re a one note Charley. Always with the same drum beat of BS. Never mind.

                    • Many Dems condemned the war in Iraq, which has only made the Iranians stronger.

                    • No2Dems says:

                      I am the only one in America who knows the biggest spending bill in the history of mankind aka the stimulus bill has failed? I came to this conclusion all by myself?  Talk about out of touch!

                      The Dems are in power and the Republicans have no control over anything.  Remember how Bennet and Obama passed Obamacare against the will of Republicans and the will of the people?  Quit bellyaching! You have fillibuster proof majorities in the house and senate.  What can Republicans do?  Fillibuster? Nope!  

                      This is your show.  This is your hope and change.  

          • caroman says:

            Ray, here’s a USA Today editorial re: how the stimulus and bailouts actually succeeded, contrary to Repugnicant talking points:

            http://www.usatoday.com/news/o

            • No2Dems says:

              This is the real world, not the fantasy land of your World of Warcraft game.  Quit trying to force failed experiments on us and telling us how happy we are and should be.  Look around, people are suffering.  Real unemployment is around 18 percent.  Is this hope and change?  

              • I’m facing serious economic problems. Still,

                I reassert that if BAC or CITI had gone down, then social chaos would have prevailed.

                I’ve talked to some Republicans out canvasing that show more reason than No2Dems.

                Generally, most folks want to be able to work and provide for their families. They want to educate their children and see a doctor when sick.

                These desires cross party lines.

      • No2Dems says:

        Maybe a regular around your guys little circles, but he is far from a normal guy.  Do you think Bennet watches Broncos games? Do you think he goes hunting or fishing?  Seriously what about him is normal?

        • Go Blue says:

          I think Buck fishes with TNT. Give the guy a beer and watch him throw it back in your face. He’s as rational as a Sarah Palin, but then again we’re supposed to vote for him because he doesn’t wear high heels.

          What a swell down to earth guy.

        • Cartesian Doubt says:

          Am I not “normal?”

          You use the word normal a lot, N2D. Is this a compulsion?

          • No2Dems says:

            But you are not normal for numerous other reasons!  I am not saying that is the only thing that makes somebody normal, I was just giving some examples in an attempt for you guys to point out what normal activities the guy who has not earned a single thing in his whole life engages in.

            • MADCO says:

              He works.

              He plays with his kids.

              He reads.

              He does sports.

              I don’t what if anything he watches on tv.  I hate watching the Broncos, since 98 anyway.

            • shrubHugger says:

              Fuck.

              Please.. no one feed the troll. Someone who’s only talking point is Markist agenda! and librel! blah! blah! is probably some teen age putz. Also the over use of puntuation is obnoxious.

              Go outside and make some friends No2

            • Cartesian Doubt says:

              You’re starting a whole lot of pissing contests with people who have posted here for years.

              You would do well to listen a little, and knock off this “you libs” stuff. It’s old and overused by bj.

              Try doing something new, like coming up with solutions. That would amaze a lot of posters here.

              • No2Dems says:

                I will share my views as I please, but thanks for the advice.  I know you would like to silence me and go back to make believe time, where you guys stroke each others egos non-stop, but you are wrong and I will not be silenced.

                All the solutions are in the constitution.  This  is a magnificent society not because of liberalism, but despite it.

                Do you really expect that you guys can run around and just blab about whatever you please?  We are the silent majority, but we are awakening and will not be silent any longer.  

                At what point will the liberals stop?  The taxing, the spending, and the regulations will continue on and on forever, until our society is destroyed.

                • Cartesian Doubt says:

                  That’s the mistake bj made when I invited him to shut up.

                  To clear this up, I give less than a rat’s ass about your views. I don’t spend any more time thinking about you than I do my next bowel movement.

                  At the time of the constitution, conservatives were the loyalists, and the founders were the liberals looking to change the government. Hate to break it to you.

                  I, being a liberal, don’t seek the destruction of my government, but its strengthening by the equal application of the laws. Accusing me of otherwise is disrespectful to the work I’ve done.

        • Someone within a broad range of behaviors not considered deficient.  Are you so narrow-minded that a “normal” person to you must drink Coors, watch the Broncos, and hunt/fish?  Is someone who likes whiskey, watches hockey, and spends his recreation time hiking or rock climbing “abnormal”, then?

          • No2Dems says:

            Which of those does Bennet do?  I don’t see him doing any of those things!

            • Rainidog says:

              to accommodate his wife’s career.  And, he went fishing.   My kinda guy.  Sorry if you didn’t “see” him do it.  

              • No2Dems says:

                Honestly I had never heard that.  I guess that shows that he is a little more in touch than I have given him credit for.  Anything else?  

                • ThillyWabbit says:

                  Your reflexive hate has you opposing a candidate you know nothing about.

                  Bravo, numbnutz.

                  • No2Dems says:

                    Did he vote for Cash for Clunkers?

                    Did he vote for the biggest spending bill in the history of mankind aka the stimulus bill?

                    Did he vote for Obamacare?

                    Is he a rubberstamp for Obama?

                    All yes!!!!

                    Look at the damage he has done in two years.  I cringe to think of what damage would be done if he was there for six years.

                    • Go Blue says:

                      How fucking stupid are you?

                      Did the Dems inherited an economy in free-fall?

                      Did we lose all 8 million of those jobs before any of the new policies (Recovery Act included) had even gone into effect?

                      Did Bush/Republican economic policies create 90% of the current deficits?

                      Did Republicans do everything they could to NOT prevent a second Great Depression?

                      Do Republicans promise to wreck our economy again by shipping more job overseas?

                      All yes, and you’re still clown.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      5% unemployment. What didn’t work so well was the housing bubble Dems created with “affordable housing”. Just another example of well-meaning policies from bleeding heart liberals screwing everything up instead.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Bush tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie; Dems blocked him.

                    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

                      First off the mortgage companies went ape-shit loaning to anyone with a pulse (and probably to a couple of dead people). Why? Because they immediately sold the paper so a bad loan did not bite them in the ass.

                      Some of that was “affordable housing” but a lot more of it was plain old fraud on the part of the mortgage companies. And the two big problems were the regulators were asleep (or downloading porn) and the regulations had been weakened.

                      But all of that would have merely lead to a correction. What made it awful is they then sliced that paper up into derivatives, sold the derivatives, sold bets on the derivatives, sold insurance against the derivatives, etc. So the amount of money in play was something like 20X the actual mortgages. When it all went South, the dollars lost were much greater than the value of the mortgages.

                      The blame for financial deregulation is on both Republicans & Democrats. The was a bipartisan effort to give the banks everything & anything they asked for in return for campaign donations.

                      But the blame for not paying attention is 100% the Bush Administration. It occurred on their watch. And they had plenty of warning – they just chose to ignore it.

                      As to saying Republican policies worked just fine – how can you make that claim? It was the lack of adequate rules & regulation that led to this mess. Just as a football game becomes a riot with no refs, our free markets self-destruct without adequate regulation.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      and who secured that paper? Fannie and Freddie. Without that, most companies wouldn’t have taken the risks, and the failure of those that did wouldn’t have cascaded to everyone else. They had to do all that slicing up in order to remain solvent in the face of the bad loans they were being pushed to make by the government. The government was just fine with investors bearing the costs of the bad loans in order to house people who couldn’t afford it. Bush tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie, although he does bear some blame for TARP. Bush absolutely was paying attention. He tried something like 14 times to regulate Fannie and Freddie and sounded the alarm many times. Barney Frank was the one with his head in the sand.

                    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

                      Because they are the ones that issue the dollars that he ran his scam with.

                      Fannie & Freddie were the least of the problem and their loans have done better than the loans they did not take. In addition a large percentage of the loans they did take turned out to have been delivered with fraudulent documentation by the mortgage companies.

                      They were not the primary cause.

                    • No2Dems says:

                      How stupid are you?  Or better yet, how stupid is asking how stupid are you?

                    • MADCO says:

                      Wayne Allard never voted against the R leadership. Ever.

                      rubber man

                    • BlueCat says:

                      Rs are supposed to just follow orders. Always.  If not they get purged from the Borg.

                    • butterfly says:

                      I think that is the way that goes.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Could have something to do with the things he rubberstamped actually being bad ideas?

                    • MADCO says:

                      When he has agreed with the PResident, he agreed.

                      When he has disagreed, he has disagreed.

                      Your Real R-ubberstamp guy pictured above never disagreed with the R leadership on anything. Ever.

                    • Cartesian Doubt says:

                      Are you usually this rude?

                  • bjwilson83 says:

                    I’m sure Bennet’s Wikipedia article couldn’t possibly be edited by people on this site.

    • EmeraldKnight76 says:

      Buck’s comment about “choosing your partner” is another glimpse at his true character. In light of recent tragedies he once again chose to make completely insensitive remarks.

      I thought Bennet, for the first time, was very strong in the Meet the Press debate. He managed to be concise and on point and played excellent offense. Buck , OTOH, seemed to be on defense for the bulk of the debate. Especially hard for Buck was defending the rape case purely on whether he could take it to trial and never once seemed remorseful about the tone and comments made to and about the victim.

  8. Go Blue says:

    Not only did Ken Buck just confirm for the national public what most Coloradans already believe about him, but by reiterating this extremely out of touch view reminds me a lot of McCain’s comment about the “fundamentals of our economy are strong.”

    Buck’s “buyer’s remorse” comment shows far more about him as an individual, his personal bias and poor judgment, than his campaign could ever try to convince a voter of.

    Buck is a bigot and there’s already one too many of those in the U.S. Senate.  

    • ColoDem Di says:

      He emphasized Ken Buck’s treatment of the victim and didn’t just focus on the decision not to prosecute.

      I wanted to hear Ken Buck say something, anything, that indicated some semblance of compassion for the victim.  David Gregory gave him the opportunity to do so.  Instead, Buck doubled down on the “buyer’s remorse” comment.  

      He just doesn’t get it.

      • No2Dems says:

        Buck cleared his name and Bennet says that it is an issue.  Does he really think that this election is about this topic or his voting record on a failed agenda?

        Ken Buck knows what this election is about and will be a strong advocate for sex assault survivors and women in Colorado as our next U.S. Senator!

        • MADCO says:

          Buck appears to have treated the victims differently because of how they lived their lives.

          DA’s get to choose to prosecute or not. Responsible, respectable DA’s do so while respecting possible victims, even when their case may not be prosecutable.

          • No2Dems says:

            Nothing more than liberal hate speech.

            • MADCO says:

               I was expressing an opinion as an opinion.  

              “appears” could have been “appears to me” or “in my opinion it appears”  

              I don’t need proof that I have an opinion. Nor do I need proof to believe your are a fool.  

              Write a diary about why you think Buck is so great, why the R party is good for the USA, and why you dislike Obama.  You won’t need proof- just opinion.

              • No2Dems says:

                Does your opinion account to nothing more than “liberal hate speech” like I accused you of in my previous post?

                You guys sound like the stupid birthers!

                • MADCO says:

                  No, I don’t think questioning Buck’s character counts as hate speech.

                  I question his judgement – not in whether or not to prosecute, which was his job – but about how he talked about it and talked to the woman involved in that case.  His judgement forms part of his character, so I question his character.  How, other than in your hyper defensive insanity, is that “hate speech”?

      • shrubHugger says:

        I had a HUGE political/nerd crush on him and I bawled like a baby the day he died.

        I think David Gregory does an amazing job in his stead.  

      • bobster1 says:

        He has serious issues with women and now with gays.

        The idea of this retrograde wacko representing normal Coloradans should scare the crap out of everybody. It does me.

    • marilou says:

      dredge up to avoid talking about Mikey Bennet’s record; and avoid talking about over-spending, over-taxing and over-regulating.  Pathetic and sleazy, you are.  Have you noted that the Denver Post even called Bennet’s ads “sleazy”?

      • denverco says:

        homophobia and hateful attitude toward women who have had abortions. Marilou you and your fascists friends are the pathetic sleazy ones and you prove it with everyone of your mindless posts.

        • No2Dems says:

          Saying that being gay is a choice is homophobic?  

          • denverco says:

            only right wing kooks like you and bucky think people choose to be gay. Does someone choose to have brown or green eyes? Same difference jackass. People are born gay.

            • No2Dems says:

              I am not anti-gay.  I just think you are trying to drum up more scare tactics.  I hate the left’s faked indignation at any comment or position of somebody on the right.  You guys are like the soccer players that flop when you are barely tapped.  Get over it!

              • denverco says:

                You really are more of a jackass than I thought. Only a homophobe like you and buck call being born gay an excuse. An excuse for what – a fact of life, people are born gay. So by your extremely stupid logic – if you aren’t born gay what’s that an excuse for? Why don’t you get over it homophobe!

                • No2Dems says:

                  So the gay community fights hard to say that they are born with it correct?  Why is that?  I believe it is some of column a and some of column b.  Please explain how that makes me a homophobe?  Or is this another case of liberals dropping names onto conservatives without any reason.

                  • denverco says:

                    Born with it – so to you it is like some disease? That phrase in itself makes you a homophobe. People are born gay – deal with it.

                    Seems like you and bucky have the same big foot in mouth disease. To state being born gay is an excuse or to state born with it , like it is some disease or disfunction – that doesn’t sound homophobic to right wing teabaggers like you?

                  • denverco says:

                    Born with it – so to you it is like some disease? That phrase in itself makes you a homophobe. People are born gay – deal with it.

                    Seems like you and bucky have the same big foot in mouth disease. To state being born gay is an excuse or to state born with it , like it is some disease or disfunction – that doesn’t sound homophobic to right wing teabaggers like you?

  9. No2Dems says:

    Watch Bennet admit he walked the plank for Obama.  Why does he and you others still think he should be elected to walk the plank again for Obama, when he is flat out saying he will have to make more tough decisions aka ignore the will of the people in the name of “change.”

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

  10. KColorado says:

    I wasn’t going to vote for Buck anyway, but the thought of him representing Colorado makes me nauseous. THIS is the guy who is going to vote on backwards discriminatory policies? I guess if you’re a straight white male, you’re going to be fine.  But if you CHOOSE to be gay, an alcoholic, a woman or a rape victim, watch out!

  11. bjwilson83 says:

    All Bennet can do is try to smear Buck with a case which was clearly not prosecutable, according to numerous sources. He has no answers for why he voted to bankrupt the country.

  12. c rork says:

    to have a R running that can’t talk at length without shoving his foot in his mouth.

    APA:”No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.”

  13. marilou says:

    are hysterical again.  Cannot each of you choose with whom you bed down?  

  14. AristotleAristotle says:

    Why aren’t you outside on this beautiful day?

  15. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    Just got a chance to watch it.

    1. David Gregory does a good job.

    2. Robert Gibbs was underimpressive. Mostly he talked about we should not vote for Republicans rather than why we should vote for Democrats. He also was very passive never trying to do more than answer or deflect a question.

    3. Ken Buck does a good job of speaking to the question of racists in the tea party. (Has the press reported any racists, etc. at Buck events?)

    4. Ken Buck did a good job initially answering the question about changing his view, speaking only to the one that he’s got a good answer to and then ending with wanting to answer people’s questions.

    5. Michael Bennet comes out swinging! I’m not sure talking about the money in 3rd party ads was the best talking point here – but Bennet was fighting!!!

    6. Ken Buck gets the last word in on duplicitous ads and hammers Bennet on it.

    I’d say this part ended in a draw.

    7. Asking Senator Bennet about his statement that we have nothing to show for 13 trillion in debt and his 97% voting with the administration record. Bennet is pretty defensive on this and does not do a good job of explaining his “nothing to show for it” statement.

    8. Ken Buck calls Bennet duplicitous on this in response with some weak examples. And Ken Buck agreed that past Republicans are equally culpable for the deficit.

    I’d say this part was advantage Buck – I wish Bennet had talked up what we gained from the last 2 years of legislation.

    9. Paying for tax cuts – Ken Buck says we cut (unidentified) spending, and he’s against ending the tax cuts in a recession. He also used the phrase “grow government” when he meant “growing the economy” – interesting mistake.

    10. Michael Bennet agrees that tax cuts have to be paid for.

    This was easily a draw, I think because neither of them wants to answer the question – exactly what would you cut.

    11. Asking Ken Buck about his stance on abortion, the no high-heels remark, the “buyers remorse” comment, and questions about his judgement as an attorney. Wow – that’s every bit of the key anti-Buck points in one question.

    Ken Buck starts off saying the big question is jobs and the economy (true but irrelevant). He then explains why he declined the case and does as well as could be expected EXCEPT he then says “she had buyers remorse” rather than “the jury could view it as buyers remorse.” Yuck.

    12. Senator Bennet hammers back on use of the phrase “buyers remorse.”

    Advantage Bennet because the take away is Ken Buck saying “buyers remorse” and Senator Bennet ended it perfectly to leave it 100% on that. On the flip side, no discussion of Ken Buck’s stance on abortion and so not as bad as it could be for Buck.

    13. And Ken Buck goes cave man – “being gay is a lifestyle choice.” Wow, even a lot of conservatives understand that it’s baked in.

    14. Senator Bennet agreed that Ken’s view was outside the mainstream. Would have been better if Bennet had stated specifically that it is inherent.

    Giant advantage Bennet.

    15. Afghanistan – Senator Bennet says we need to start bringing troops next year. That we’ll have “substantial” troops there but need to start drawing down.

    16. Ken Buck says he wants to hear what the goals are, what they will require, and from that make his decision on troop levels. Gotta admit, that’s a fair answer (although I think we need to declare victory and bring everyone home).

    This is a draw, partially because the voters aren’t voting on this issue.

    17. Supreme Court – Ken Buck says he would have voted against Kagan and Soytamayor. Not sure if he would have voted against any others.

    18. Senator Bennet says Clarence Thomas and he’s been disappointed by Justice Roberts. Senator Bennet’s answer was pitch perfect.

    Small advantage Bennet.

    19. Asked Ken Buck about his comment that he’s not going to Washington to make friends. Good answer, but was really interesting was his big answer – that he’s coming to Washington to reduce the deficit and reduce spending and the size of the government. Not a word about fixing the economy or jobs. I think this is what Ken Buck’s focus will be if he’s elected.

    20. Senator Bennet responds with how he has worked to craft bipartisian bills. How it is important to work together rather than just filibustering.

    Strong advantage Bennet – moderates want to hear bipartisan effort.

    21. What you want to accomplish. Ken Buck wants a balanced budget amendment and to improve his golf game.

    22. Senator Bennet wants to accomplish more opportunities for our kids and our grandkids and to raise his 3 little girls to be happy and productive citizens.

    Ending with strong advantage Bennet – wants a positive improvement in the government rather than a limit and focused on his kids.

    It was interesting watching this after reading all the comments. I think it was mostly a draw, with each having some advantages. Except for Ken Buck’s comment about gay being a choice – that could hurt him quite a bit. An awful lot of families have a member who is gay, even Republican families. And there are kids killing themselves because of segments of society that don’t view it as natural and normal.

    It was a good interview, and it did do a good job of showing who each candidate is. The Democrats will see it as a Bennet win because of course who Michael Bennet is is vastly superior to Ken Buck. The Republicans will see it as a Ken Buck win for the flip reason.

    As to people who are truly undecided, I think it does a good job of laying out what you get with each of them. So good interview.

  16. ..to give a nuanced answer explaining nature vs. nurture.  He does say that they ultimately have a choice though, which I don’t believe to be true.

  17. ColoDem Di says:

    The coverage isn’t flattering.  Go to Google news and do a search on Ken Buck.

    Please, please, please let this be his “macaca” moment…

  18. ColoDem Di says:

    The coverage isn’t flattering.  Go to Google news and do a search on Ken Buck.

    Please, please, please let this be his “macaca” moment…

  19. Froward69 says:

    I come away with the Impression that bj, marilou and no2dems are just like ken Buck…

    intentionally ignorant and narcissistic about their ignorance.

    Voting for ken buck would be a return to and endorsement of the same policies and ideology of George Bush. an ideology that outsources jobs and blew a 12 trillion dollar hole in our economy.

    linking Sexuality to Alcoholism as a disease is so demonstrably stupid. I have difficulty finding words to describe the epic vastness of empty, in Ken Bucks head.

  20. The realistThe realist says:

    a lot of play on CNN this morning.  His statements on homosexuality are being compared to the extremist statements by New York’s Governor candidate Paladino.  You’d think someone running for the US Senate would be able to think better on his feet, and “fake” something better than what Buck said.  

    Several possibilities, none of them good:

    1) Just can’t think on his feet (how does that work for a prosecutor?).

    2) He believes the vast majority of voters agree with his backward views – he’s wrong.

    3) His genuine homophobic beliefs are so strong he can’t soften them even to help himself in a run for the Senate.  

    • MADCO says:

      He just doesn’t see what’s wrong with making large numbers of Americans second class citizens his view.  He never thought about it much, people can choose their partners, so …it’s like  other choices, like a diseasechoosing to drink too much ….alcoholism or something

      He knows exactly why his comments are so controversial, but he had to salvage some teaparty enthusiasm – lost ’em on 62, and the prolife litmus test for judges, and privatizing Social Security, and repealing the 16,500 new and armed IRS agents and death panels, and  tax increases to balance the budget and sponsoring a constitutional amendment to ban abortion , and agreeing/disagreeing with Tancredo that Obama is the biggest threat to America, and birthers are dumbasses, and and and – he had to hold the line somewhere.  

      He flat out had no clue what to say.  He froze.  (You can see it.) The shifting eyes, realization his notes got no helpful talking points (cut taxes) And so he said the first thing that came to mind.    Surprisingly, it happened more than once. (Yeah, well, you know what they say about the light at the end of the tunnel – sometimes it’s a train coming the other way.)

  21. MADCO says:

    get the comments up to near “his record.”

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


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