CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


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

(D) Joe Neguse*


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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 11, 2011 11:08 PM UTC

Stay Classy, Shawn Mitchell (Beat Up Some Liberals Edition)

  • by: Colorado Pols

With little additional comment needed, as posted to Sen. Shawn Mitchell’s Facebook page:

To our knowledge, the only member of Congress presently talking, very obliquely, about a ‘ban’ on Koran burning is Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham. It would have been good for Sen. Mitchell to mention this detail, since the rest of Mitchell’s analogy is about “beating up liberals.”

Don’t get us wrong, we understand that Mitchell is not advocating “beating up liberals,” but why drag Democrats into a Republican’s knee-jerk reaction to a Koran burning? And how is “talking about tax increases” as bad as burning a Koran? It must be, after all, since that would apparently be grounds for a conservative riot–as much as burning a Koran incites Muslims? Isn’t that how this analogous business works? What exactly is Sen. Mitchell trying to say here?

It’s probably as stupid as it looks, but our psychologist readers might find a little more.


66 thoughts on “Stay Classy, Shawn Mitchell (Beat Up Some Liberals Edition)

  1. to protect us poor, fragile voters from checking “no” on a referred measure.

    Kings among men.

    Prejudice = Violence = Apparently GOP = People who generally hate free speech, unless that speech is theirs


    Have any news for us today?

    1. try going through the door, leaving her on the other side and pushing the door back but not closed.

      Or, get on all fours, bark at the door and pant, then push the door with your head or one paw.

      1. My landlord, his dog, and I worked for hours over a few weekends. It’s hilarious. And oddly convenient. My apartment is the upstairs of a very old Victorian, so the rooms all have their own doorways (but in three cases not the doors). To keep her off the stairs, out of the kitchen while cooking, or to stop her walking on wet floors, all I need to do is put the dreaded baby gate up. It’s attached to nothing (the walls aren’t parallel anymore, so I lean it across the entry) and she weighs at least 45 pounds now. 🙂 Oh noes! The gate is up; I’m stuck!

        I have a sneaking suspicion that your advice was a clever ruse to make me pretend I have paw to push the door with. (Seriously, all the advice has been great for this first time puppy owner. Thanks!)

        1. dogs are fun. I have 3. They all have their moments of stupid. But, they really, really love me. To quote Sally Fields.

          Does your pup hold eye contact? People who are more into it than I say that is an indicator. If I judge my 3 I have to agree that the one that holds eye contact the best is the brightest. But, he is not my favorite.

          1. That’s not totally true, but it’s a good rough estimate. How the dog reacts to eye contact is a better indicator of personality/intelligence(s) than just how long they hold it. I like a dog that will hold eye contact for a few moments but if you keep staring will hop up and come over to you and see what you want–usually intelligent + trainable. The ones that just hold eye contact tend to be intelligent but not as responsive to human commands (great for more independent work that requires canine decision-making, though, like scent work). Dogs that look away and lick their lips when you make eye contact are often insecure or simply very submissive. If they walk away when you make eye contact, they’re probably a Pug.

            1. that is EXACTLY what he does, holds contact and then comes to me.

              Since this isn’t the open thread, although it is more fun to talk about real dogs, is their evidence that Shawn Mitchell is trainable?

              1. So I guess he’s got “Earn, boy, earn! Supplement meager legislator salary!” down. But not “support unions that protect your part time job.”

                If I ever make eye contact with Shawn I’ll give you my impressions…

                1. Or rates you from across the room. If you’re lucky, you get two (front and back).

                  Back to fuffers butt – you guys make me laugh. (FDN – That’s fabulous!)

    1. and I’m not even connected to him there.  I had commented on something another legislator posted – Mitchell was commenting also and apparently was then “unfriended” by the other legislator because of his obnoxious statements.  

      So what does Mitchell do?  He writes personal messages to others (including me) who were commenting on the legislator’s post.  Gave me the creeps then, and still does.

    1. Were this msm, I’d understand your logic. But since it’s not I’m confused.

      Help people find that precious racist that’s still in the party? #hesnottheonlyone

    2. “Barack HUSSEIN Obama.”

      I swear, I don’t think I’ve ever heard any President’s middle name mentioned so much since Richard Milhous Nixon.

  2. You think Republicans would start to realize that social networking sites are just an additional place for them to say stupid and offensive things.

    Obama + Twitter = Slightly Increased Youth Vote

    Republicans + Twitter = Maccaca x 1000

  3. He’s a good reminder that you can be totally obnoxious online (and often offline) and still get elected to public office in this state. It bodes well for the Polsters who I hope will one day run.

      1. A noxious weed! It’s displayed over his crotch to remind people that the real problem with these species is their rapid reproduction.

  4. without offering a single example. As noted, the only one I’ve heard suggesting we might even think about banning things such as Koran burning is a Republican.

    Dems mainly think it was a sickening, stupid thing for the guy to do and hate that it will probably get more innocent people and American troops killed but we don’t advocate abridging his rights and we do recognize that the people who murder any westerner they happen to have near at hand over stuff somebody else said or did are the actual murderers.

    We do strongly suggest that when you know perfectly well that terrorist extremists are quite given to such behavior it would be nice to refrain from attacking the religion of over a billion of our fellow human beings, most of whom aren’t murderers or terrorists, not only for that reason but also because such attacks are deeply offensive to decent human beings as a separate issue from possible consequences.

    But people don’t have to take suggestions in a free country as long as what they do is within the law.  Ultimately we defend free speech and we don’t defend murderous, terrorist loons. Sorry to disappoint,  ArapG.  

    1. Those union thugs would have torn down a statue and ripped up the grass and jackhammered the concrete JUST TO MAKE THEIR POINT if police hadn’t kept them in check. Because my wild imagination tells me so!

      1. See Chesty Bucknut? Gregory Golyansky was right. Scum! Scum! In your brain! Scrub your brain!

        I recommend Psilocybe cubensis, but only where it is legal.

      2. …You can’t take credit for things you would have done.

        Rand Paul says he would have marched with Doctor King; Oh yeah?!? Well I would have helped Jesus escape!

    2. just how many people were beaten up in WI by demonstrators?

      If you like Shawn just reproduce the photo above and put it in your room at mom’s.

      1. he already suffers psychic butthurt because mommy never gave him enough.  What do you think would happen if her little remaining attention was split with Shawn’s picture??  (“Oh, thankyou honey — a staunch defender of conservative principles and an elected official to boot — he’s so much like the son I always wanted, . . . but never had.”)

    3. I guess I was too busy reading about the radical right-wingers killing doctors, bombing buildings, shooting security guards …

      No “would have” about those events …

          1. The statement that a head scar might be indicative of brain surgery seems completely logical to me. And if Obama won’t release his school transcripts, no doubt he wouldn’t release something like this either.

    4. … had his home madrassa not beaten all critical thinking out of him.

      See, Beej: when you start declaring that even though a made-up event never happened (like unions beating up Mitchell), maybe it WOULD HAVE been true under contrary-to-fact circumstances… well, there’s just no end to the fun you can have!

          1. There’s no evidence I was there — but BJ isn’t a big fan of “evidence,” as shown by his views on evolution. So maybe I actually was there, having a lot of fun with BJ’s mom while we let little BJ play with his Noah’s ark dinosaurs playset.

    5. either on the part of the mainly teachers and other public and service union members, heavy on scary middle aged teachers, or the non-union member majority, heavy on equally scary middle aged women and seniors. You have no idea what you’re talking about, as usual. The police were looking very relaxed and having a very easy day.

      1. The police were on edge. They called backup and formed a line between the two groups. They had to push the union people back. If you think they were very relaxed and having an easy day, you weren’t there.

            1. Yes, the police, toward the end, formed something of a barrier between the handful of baggers and the large crowd as a precaution but they didn’t have to do much besides be there.  I personally spoke to several very relaxed and friendly officers and saw not a single one presented with anything approaching a dangerous situation or resorting to any serious measures.  There were no incidents of violence or of police having to get tough with anyone reported at the time.  

              I stand by my observation that it was no big deal for the police. Bet they’ve had tougher days on St Patrick’s or Cinqo de Mayo. Much tougher in the wake of a big sports championship win.

              I’m old enough to remember Chicago ’68 so my standard for alleging mayhem is a little higher than a few people shouting a few arguments at each other, Beej. The bagger presence was just a pathetic handful, after all. I do remember one of them yelling about the Wisconsin Governor being a great patriot but that seemed more silly than threatening.

              1. As I recall (and I wasn’t at the rally but half remember reading this in the paper), the baggers didn’t have a permit and were required to stay on the sidewalk.  The union supporters, in contrast, did have a permit.  Might the police line have just been to keep the baggers where they belonged?

                1. they also wanted to make sure exchanges didn’t lead to anything too heated. In any case just being there worked fine.  Not a single one of the teachers, middle aged women or seniors in my part of the crowd made a move to attack the poor pathetic baggers.  

                  For one thing, the organizers were stationed strategically, asking us politely to please not engage with the handful of counter protesters. In fact, while organizers were very visible getting that message out I don’t recall hearing the police issuing orders. They were pretty much just hanging out in case and were never called upon to do much of anything

                  1. It wasn’t the teachers, middle aged women, or seniors. It was these guys:

                    Yeah, we brought cameras this time. My favorite is the gorilla pose.

                    1. My favorite is the middle-aged, gray-haired woman to the right in the third photo. You can’t see her hands — at a traffic stop, that would be considered threatening behavior.  

                    2. raising their fists and saying stuff. Terrifying!  Do you have any pictures of them pushing people around? Brandishing baseball bats?  Even just poking people in the chest? What a little wussie you must be. You would have soiled yourself in Chicago in ’68.

                    3. When liberals open their mouths, the beej feels threatened. Who are we to deny what’s in his quivering little amygdala?

                    4. It’s not his fault that he has such severe agoraphobia that he interprets crowds chanting and making fists as a threat to his personal safety. That’s why he hangs out with the peaceful, kind, gentle, non-posturing, non-shouting Tea Party crowd. I mean, the worst that they do is openly call for assassination of public officials, and occasionally show up to rallies like this with guns. That’s much less dangerous than making a “people power” fist.

                    5. You’ve just topped yourself in absolutely pathetic posting.

                      Jesus isn’t going to embrace you in Heaven. No room for liars there.

        1. Gee, that settles it. They MUST have been on edge. After all, relaxed law enforcement officers are typically trapezoidal or oblong…

    6. very, very, very, very scary Beej.  It’s probably a good thing for both you and Shawn that David Chestnut was there along with you to hold your trembling little hands (or, in case, heaven forbid either of you were stricken down with the vapors).  Very, very, very, very scary indeed.

  5. Sorry for the strong language, but anyone who jokes about beating up liberals, and who jokes about the underwear that female legislators are wearing, is a world-class douchenozzle.  

  6. is pretty savvy, and certainly not one to advocate restriction of the 1st amendment unless highly compelled.  

    Gen. Petraeus certainly believes the burning further places our troops in harms way.

    The burning is certainly protected in the USA, but escalating the dangers to our women and men in uniform constitutes a unconscionable act.

    1. but constitutionally protected. Once you start chipping away at our rights, whatever the reason, you wind up without habeas corpus or Geneva Conventions and with illegal wiretaps with no warrants, people getting detained because of the wrong last name or spirited away to black site prisons or countries where any form of brutality goes without anything approaching due process or opportunity to show they are the innocent victims of a mistake…  You know, all the stuff that’s already happened.  We need to draw a line and say, no more loss of basic rights.  

      After all, that’s what are soldiers are supposed to be dying to defend in the first place. Every violation during the Bush administration and continuing today shows disrespect for their sacrifice as deep as the lack of concern for their welfare shown by the Koran burners. We can’t control the burners but we can refuse to destroy ourselves from within, saving our terrorist and extremist enemies the trouble.

      On the other hand, I really don’t see why all those Afghan, Iraqi and Pakistani civilians should be expected to keep dying for us.  Instead of imposing military law here at home to stop idiots why not get the hell out, as we inevitably will eventually without having changed much in any lasting way, regardless.  Does anybody believe we are going to transform the region via military means or that staying longer will get us better results than what we’re seeing right now?  And is what we’re seeing right now worth it anymore?    

      1. Sadly, that ship has sailed. Wave a scary Jihadist at this government, and it’s a matter of which parts of the Bill of Rights get bargained away first, and which we hang onto until we get really scared.

    2. Banning the most dangerous act of all–the one thing that is all but guaranteed to kill American soldiers–sending them to war.

      If we’re not willing to do that, because defending our freedom and our way of life is important enough to take some risks, let’s at least honor those already killed or injured in action by retaining a few of those freedoms.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

40 readers online now


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