CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 29, 2010 04:07 AM UTC
34 Comments
hurts my eyes.
Hey, Kennedy – get over it.
a blogger points out the obvious problems with the TSA’s new policies and how our freedoms should be more protected under a democrat than a republican and so far, you guys are just piling on…
At least the sensible people at Saturday Night Live get it…
Figures.
It’s both nonsense and demonstrates your limited wit. If you’re going to try to insult me, you shouldn’t just use the same words I used, especially when they don’t fit.
Another diary, another embedded video.
Wade, you and JHK have a lot in common. Mostly formatting.
So Obama is
okaaay…
And the new security procedures are a violation of what enumerated Constitutional right for Americans?
Is it the constitutional right not to be felt? The constitutional right of privacy? The right to anonymity?
What rights are we giving up?
The right to not be inconvenienced? The right to stuff bombs in our underwear? What about the right to bear arms?
Look, if everyone was allowed to carry guns – as the 2nd Amendment supposedly guarantees – in airports and on planes, the problems would disappear.
right against unreasonable search and seizure. Some might consider this an unreasonable search. Others may disagree. But it is a Constitutionally guaranteed right…
and you jump in to defend his myopia.
As a political football it does not matter.
If President Obama ordered TSA to cease and desist the scans and searches, the right would howl about security. If he allows Secretary Napolitano to keep her job and continue scanning and touching, the right will howl about how invasive and pointless it is.
In the former scenario, and perceived security risk or threat will be tagged as D failure. In the latter, it is being tagged as D’s don’t get it. (And what’s the point if we’re going to allow the underwear bomber to lawyer up?
Thanks for posting, Wade.
there does come a point where we have to wonder why are we doing all this. We will put ourselves through all this degradation, and the terrorists who really are out there to get us will simply look for where we’re not scanning, like the tens of millions of parcel freight that goes through the system unscanned every day. Those packages with real bombs made it to America despite scanning everyone in America who tries to walk on an airplane. But it would be prohibitively expensive and cost FedEx and UPS billions of profits to secure that system, so let’s just keep looking the other way.
we’ve stopped our lives, given away our freedoms, and let the terrorists win. All for the illusion of safety.
What’s interesting to me is that it takes someone under a bra to make people notice.
Fortunately all anyone has to do to avoid losing this particular freedom is not fly.
Unfortunately this seems to be another example of giving the people what they want. It’s a raised tax. Everyone (the majority is “everyone”) screams for 100% safety, but no one likes the process. Want your city to have parks? Pony up the cash. In spite of JHK’s bold, most people seem to think this step “necessary” anyway.
Mark Ruffalo and I have something in common now!
http://www.movieline.com/2010/…
Maybe then people will get it.
this way…well, it’s either this or profiling…you choose.
really Does It for me.
That and lots of bold are sure signs of superior minds.
look for the unbolded, uncapitalized words where the author cleverly chooses to make conspicuous his or her most salient points.
You either stop things from getting on a plane, or you stop people. The alternative to invasive searching is invasive questioning. I’m okay with the searching. Five years ago a friend working for TSA said they regularly found box cutters, knives and guns in passenger’s carry-on bags. That was 4 years post 9/11. JK, I think you need a new cause. There are probably a few other violations of our civil rights worthy of protest.
It’s the way real security works best.
At the airport there should be four lines. And two kinds of airlines.
1) Don’t care- search me, search my stuff, question me, scan me, whatever.
2) Only scan- no touching.
3) Only touching – no scans.
4) Nothing without probable cause.. No scans, no touching, no questions.
Then the first kind of airline would be essentially what we have now- inspected and regulated by the federally funded FAA, federally funded air marshals and security, luggage inspections, etc.
The first three lines would get to fly on this type airline.
The second type of airline would have no gov’t support except access to the airways and runways and FAA control only necessary to manage the first type and civil aviation. No air marshals, no security, no baggage checks, etc.
Since your search-free airline could, er, land wherever its most aggressive passengers wanted, I’m not sure that helps.
I want that cute little redhead there…
Get groped by an ogre for free or pay an extra $20 to get groped by a hottie. They’ll talk dirty to you while they do it for another $10.
I just toss my “homeland security device” (a .41 magnum) in my car, pack my bags, and hit the road Jack….
A large mag is security we can count on.
wow
Seems like some of you bring a new meaning to the concept – “My Party… right or wrong”
Seems to me that while playing the fringe lunatic part, the actor could belong to either party.
I’m so far left on national security that I’m right (big brother stays out of my business, please).
What I don’t do is make a good case for psychiatric screenings instead of body ones. Instead I have to go and counteract this kind of crap to fight for limits of the “it’s for national security” excuse for all kinds of much larger violations.
Much like you bringing up unquestioned party loyalty; this isn’t really even in the top ten of things to argue for or about. But at least your comment wasn’t completely nuts.
Now, does suggesting that you aren’t nuts count as my good deed for the day? Or like that and an elevator hold for will balance me out…
Ali makes a good point. There are plenty of Obamacrats poo-pooing complaints about recent innovations in TSA screening who went ape shit over intrusive surveillance perpetrated by the Bush administration.
And all the right-wing Drudge readers who decided now was the time to get mad about airport security were nowhere to be found when a Republican president authorized warrantless wiretapping on a breathtaking scale. Not to mention indefinite detention and other policies that would have set off the right if Obama had proposed them.
There’s ample hypocrisy to go around.
Happy December everyone!