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*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 20, 2021 10:31 AM UTC

The GMS Podcast: Rep. Yadira Caraveo Gets More Smarter

  • 91 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
State Representative, Pediatrician, and Congressional candidate Yadira Caraveo

This week on Episode #89 of The Get More Smarter Podcast, hosts Jason Bane and Ian Silverii talk with State Rep. Yadira Caraveo about her work as a state legislator, a pediatrician, and now, a candidate for Congress in CO-08.

Later, Jason and Ian try to figure out who is the driver of the Republican Senate candidate clown car; we wonder if Rep. Lauren “Q*Bert” Boebert even knows what she is saying anymore; and we decide that Republican Heidi Ganahl is running the worst campaign for governor in the entire country.

Catch up on previous episodes of The Get More Smarter Podcast at GetMoreSmarter.com.

Questions? Comments? Complaints? Hit us up at AngryRants@getmoresmarter.com.

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | TuneIn

Comments

91 thoughts on “The GMS Podcast: Rep. Yadira Caraveo Gets More Smarter

  1. Did you know Dr. Yadira Caraveo, MD, is a doctor? Because she’s not just a politician, and her anecdotes are more than anecdotal, they’re medical! I am, of course, being facetious and don’t think she’s a “fake” doctor or anything. She has a medical degree and has practiced pediatric clinical medicine for quite a while, but even though that’s not her primary occupation these days, she still brings it up at every opportunity. It seems a little excessive, and kind of gets my goad. Just a little joke, fellas.

    Anyway, in my opinion, she is being disingenuous and could be a sellout and a disgrace to her degree. When a person has a medical degree and brings it up in the context of legislation on medical issues, an implicit assumption can be made that person is speaking to medical expertise.

    The issues she has brought it up in chorus with to date have surrounded anecdotal stories of vice akin to the kind of lurid tales spread in the 1930’s in the USA. Conservatives wanted to convince people that cannabis, rebranded under the racist moniker “marihuana,” was the most lethal drug one could abuse. Even to the point of lying about the consequences of its use, and embellishing half-truths!

    This is what I see echoed in Dr. Caraveo’s arguments for HB 1317, her bill limiting marijuana concentrates. Half-truths, anecdotal incidents of really bad “trips” and psychotic episodes, conflated as a preponderance of scientific consensus for a supposed danger. To be clear, there is some sort of correlation between mental illness and THC, this is undeniable. To date, there is no clinical evidence whatsoever supporting her view that the link is causal. Simply none. This is not “stoner babble.” This is “try using JSTOR” babble.

    To my mind, that is really curious, isn’t it? She insists that the connection is concrete, and that’s true, but the relationship, the tautology of it, absolutely is not. When she says that, she is lying. When she speaks about the neutral connection, it is equivocating on what we take “connection” to mean, exchanging a statement of coexisting with a statement of causation. Anyway, that’s why I think it’s absolutely appropriate to call her actions “disingenuous.”
    Sometimes I think, “Wish I lived in her district so I could have the pleasure of not voting for her.” Haha, I am just kidding. I don’t want to live in Thornton, and I even live in Boebert’s district! Tee Hee .

    This podcast episode was disappointing to me because it was another avenue for her to skip over the tougher questions I’d really like to hear her answers to. Maybe some of the wise people on here who don’t see any problem being a prick to someone outside their clique can answer these too in between their all too clever putdowns and schoolyard debates.

    Why 15% as an initial target?
    Why pen the bill in secrecy and with anonymous contributors?
    How is that not a violation of SB 155 which stipulates that MMJ legislation must be made with all stakeholders?
    How is an arbitrary concentration for a tenuous link between a targeted substance and purported, unspecified “pipelines to schools” in line with Amendment 64’s plain language to regulate marijuana “like alcohol?”
    Why across the board recreational and medical as an initial target?
    Who invited who to collaborate on this bill?
    Did she know that private schools would be bussing in students to support her during the hearing for HB1317?
    If she did, wouldn’t it have been better to time her “bio breaks” during the hearing for the blocs they had to repeat the scripts given to them? That way she wouldn’t have had to walk out during the teleconference with her constituents who she hasn’t met with and has deliberately ignored in all of this?
    Is it appropriate that she heaped praise on children for renouncing their sins and literally prostrating themselves on television to support her bill?

    Was she aware of the CSU-Pueblo Institute of Cannabis Research before one of its faculty showed up to the hearing on HB1317 to explain that her institute covers much of the intended “missing research” she claims the bill would supply? If she was aware, why did she feel Anschutz and CUHealth needed to have access to research funds as well?

    KWTREE wanted me to list those, I look forward to his reasonable, concise, coherent explanation of why these questions are unreasonable conspiracy babbling, the teacher that he is.

    It’s bothersome that every article concerning this bill described the stakeholders as “potheads and big pot” opposing it versus the kindly citizens protecting children. That’s not over-exaggeration, and it is immensely insulting to be compared to Fox News pundits for pointing out the lameness of that. Setting aside issues I have with taking adults in the eyes of the law and adding more infantilizing restrictions, I have issues with her getting free riegn of the press with absolutely no attention whatsoever given to the experts. Not me, mind you, the experts. I’d be happy if it were Dr. Caraveo, but to date, her evidence is literally a handful of cases of hyperemesis that would not have been stemmed by any of the restrictions and measures put in place which will hurt local level “mom and pop” shops (as you boomers like to say) and vastly, VASTLY advantage big pot and prime the pump for more restrictions down the road when the “results” of the bill are gleaned and studied.

    The optics of everything surrounding this are shady. If I were to put it in my own words, I’d even say she is disgracing her degree by waving it around as she “carouses” the “hysterical” parents into a furor over the issue. I would say she panders to them much in the same way that the public officer and noted racist Harry J. Anslinger swayed the public and the doctors who testified before congress when pushing for the Marihuana Stamp Tax.

    1. You edited your post, so I’ll edit mine.
      Had you posted this reasoned, specific list of questions and objections about Caraveo’s proposed legislation, instead of the word salad you first posted, we could all have been spared some negativity.
      As for myself, I was genuinely curious about Caraveo.My daughter’s family does live in Thornton, in the proposed HD8. Dr C could potentially represent them. They definitely wouldn’t support anything that reverses ground gained by A64.

      I still think your allegations that Caraveo is somehow profiting off this bill are nonsense, and you haven’t posted anything to back them. Nor have you posted a link to the bill. I don’t have time or patience to do your research for you.

      If you want to persuade people to your point of view, I suggest you compose your posts carefully, reread and edit them for grammar and sense, link to your sources (copy and paste if you must), and refrain from insulting those who are merely asking clarifying questions or mildly disagreeing with you. Which is how I started out.

      Cannabis is not my bread and butter issue; there are those for whom it is. I’ll leave it to them to decide if this bill is as catastrophic as you claim it is.

      1. “She is disingenuous sellout and a disgrace to her degree. To date she has only used it to carouse hysterical parents to pander to their concerns of reefer madness.”

        She emphasizes every time she makes an appearance that she is a doctor and the only doctor in the legislature, insinuating that is the expertise she speaks from. However, she has never used it to implicate the medically observable effects of THC. 

        She always discusses one or two cases of teenagers illegally abusing the substance and then brings up parents who have not been able to effectively communicate with/parent their own children.  

        Is that clear? Or do you need a refresher on the War on Drugs, Harry Anslinger, Reefer Madness, etc? I kind of thought that would be old hat to this forum, but apparently not.

        BTW, just because you didn’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s below your understanding. Try asking nicely. Likening me to the far right casts a pale light on any clarification of my stance. Very encouraging.

        1. Nope, still don’t get 2/3 of your points. I get your first; you don’t think cannabis should be regulated at all. No warning labels, sell to anyone with a plausible ID, THC levels whatever the market will bear, protecting kids is the parent’s responsibility. Emptor caveat. The cannabis industry should definitely copy the worst excesses of the alcohol industry. 
          I disagree, but then I don’t buy recreational cannabis. THC under 3% suits me just fine. 

          As far as your other 2 apparent points,  they still bewilder.

          Very medical. Not at all Anslinger/Nixon era politicking. Once again, she squandered millions of taxpayer funds for private rehabs and DA’s who will profit off her misrepresentation of her expertise.

          The catholic schools bussing in students as punishment to speak to Colorado adults about what is right. I hope she fizzles and burns, because she sure as fuck isn’t listening.

          What exactly do you accuse Dr. C of doing or being? What private rehabs? What millions of taxpayer $$?  Are you saying her degree is fake? 10 years of CU Med school and a private pediatric practice notwithstanding, you in your infinite wisdom get to say that she isn’t a “real doctor”? Or should she just not brag about it like a white man would? 

           

          1. "No warning labels, sell to anyone with a plausible ID, THC levels whatever the market will bear, protecting kids is the parent’s responsibility."

            If it's good enough for firearms, it's good enough for weed.

          2. You should pay closer attention to the legislation as it's being developed.

            Are you familiar with the failed War on Drugs? Harry Anslinger's influence on congress and American Medical Association to mislead the public at large about the medical opinion at the time.  

            If you are aware of that, bringing it up in this light should illuminate what disquiets me about her ENTIRE approach to this. 

            Frankly, she has put up zero evidence, as much as you have, for setting a limit. 

            As to your supporting the arbitrary number, that's irrelevant.  You're not a scientist or doctor either, but her arguments are no more scientific than your shrug "works for me." On that logic, let's go ahead and top out the alcohol concentration there as well, right?  Unless it's medically necessary, of course. 

            That's besides the point anyhow. HB 1317 contradicts standing legislation, not limited to Amendment 64, state senate bills appropriating funds for research of the exact sort she repeatedly insists isn't already in place. 

            So she has a degree.  I'm not disputing that.  How it relates to her legislation-drafting is what I dispute. Her arguments, like yours, are anecdotal.  So I'm on board when we stop selling beer in grocery stores, restaurants, hotels, etc. in any equivalent concentration. 

              1. In 1970 Nixon decided the number one enemy facing America was "drugs" and consequently he "declared war" figuratively on substances by literal legislative reformation of priorities.  This is what American pundits and policymakers refer to as the "War on Drugs." 

                Substance abuse exists, and is arguably more aggravating on the status quo in America than it was in 1970. 

                Ergo, there is a War on Drugs which is a failure. 

                What more do you need clarified? Or are you just not on board with the notion that waging a PR campaign with real bullets and tax dollars to target the left wing, blacks, and hispanics, per John Ehrlichman when reflecting on his time in Nixon's cabinet leading up to Watergate is not an effective way of managing substance abuse? 

                1. R and R was being sarcastic, Stonerboy.  The veterans on this board were fighting against the Drug War when you were still wearing your mother’s old underwear you found in the attic and feeling quite a strange thrill.

                  Voyageur, for one, was on the staff at West Point and knows a bit about war.  He has long said: “Wars are not waged against inanimate objects.  There is no war on drugs.  There is only a war on people who use drugs.”

                  1. Man, company's can be wishy-washy about hot-button issues, when newspapers say things like this:

                    "Diversity, equity and inclusion will be embedded in the hiring, promotion and development of our employees, in reaching diverse audiences with our content, and in choosing the companies with which we do business."

                    in their bylines, you don't suppose that they would include sexual orientation/ identity as well does it? Hypothetically, it could be a good litmus test for the paper's dedication to diversity and inclusion, especially in light of all the transphobic bills in their state if some writer were to make some old fashioned jokes about men in drag to offend someone. A public figure? An almost-award-winning writer?

                    Someone would have to take things pretty far to write something like that under a public account where they have made numerous references to their public career and position as a friend of diversity and social justice. 

                    If I were in that position, I'm not sure it would be worth the headache to even risk comments like that for some playground bully antics!

                    I dunno.  Just thinking stuff.  Weird world.

            1. Why should I pay closer attention To the legislation? I told you I only buy CBD cannabis with less than 3% THC concentration, which you would know if you were actually knowledgeable about the cannabis business.

              I’m still waiting for you to explain your wild allegations that Dr. Caraveo engaged in some kind of corruption schemes,  had millions of dollars in “private rehabs” or was somehow funneling funds to prosecutors. Goddess knows I love me some juicy scandals, but you have teased, then failed to produce.

              Dr C is correct that kids as well as adults are ODing on edibles, and she has probably treated some patients. Old farts like my ex, used to the  milder strains of their glorious and hazy youths, are coming into ERs comatose from eating an entire “buzzed” chocolate bar, when they were supposed to eat just one  square of it. Granted, he’s an idiot, but there are many idiots.

              https://www.uchealth.org/today/marijuana-related-er-visits-rising-dramatically-edibles-spraking-particular-concerns/

              How would you solve that problem?

              1. Yes, to the legislation, or to the conversation. I don’t care what your anecdotal experience is.  I don’t drink, but I certainly wouldn’t stand in the way of a cognizant adult choosing to imbibe literal poison. 

                What wild allegation do you want an explanation of? That the 15% is arbitrary? How do I explain something that is entirely on her and her implicit fans such as yourself to specify support?

                Is it simply that you don’t care for it yourself? Is that how you approach all legislation? I don’t have children, so there goes any education funding support I suppose. I’m not a woman or black, so those issues are out, too, with your reasoning.

                You are entirely mischaracterizing my issue and trying to paint it as some grand conspiracy of private financing.  I don’t have to prove anything of the sort because I’m not claiming it. 

                Your last paragraph is revealing.  Is that the “scientific” basis you want from medical professionals writing legislation? A handful of cases of hyperemesis that medically expected conflated as “ODing.” Please, show me one scientific report (not a coroner, elected official, or LEO’s interpretation of one) which supports overdosing as a feasible goal, let alone something which can be achieved accidentally? Somehow, everyone got on board with just accepting that there is mortal risk associated with THC as fact without sufficient evidence to call it scientific.

                In lieu of this nonexistent report… well, what? Let’s go ahead and axe an entire nascent industry? Or perhaps we should pump the brakes and ask what is going on in these cases and whether taking steps backwards in progressive legislation to handle a few cases of people freaking out and an unknown relationship with mental illness which we already had funding dedicated to researching.

                Yeah, you have some reading to do on the industry if this is at all strange or sounds like “stoner babble” or conspiracy theories.  

                My wild allegations amount to what I’ve tangibly said. She is ignorant, at best just as hysterical as her constituents, at worst selling out legislation to fill the court logs of DA’s. Explain how more stringent MMJ laws would not lead to more work, and more publicity and $$ for public prosecutors. 

                Again, do you know anything about the War on Drugs and Anslinger, or are you just a bloviating waste of citizenship like Voyageur?

                  1. Weird, whenever I try to load the page it just brings me to your profile. How utterly annoying.

                    And “Cookie,” he said I could use my platypus picture. Sorry if you’ll have to actually read comments before forming opinions!

                    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

                    1. Change your avatar. That one belongs to V, and I think ColoradoPolsters expect to see a comment from V when it appears.

                    2. That's not true, of course, Cookie.  I told him I didn't mind because it was his admission that I was his superior in every mea ningful way.  Druggie Dullard that he is, he missed the sarcasm.

                    3. Uh oh, V is sundowning again. 

                      YOU SAID IT WAS OKAY, GRANDPA, REMEMBER???

                      He's not so much "hard of hearing" as he is "dumb as a stone." 

                      DO YOU NEED TO POTTY AGAIN, GRANDPA? REMEMBER WHEN YOU MADE BOOM BOOMS IN YOUR CHAIR LAST TIME?

                      That V, what a nut!

                1. Clear communication is not really your forte,is it?

                  I've asked three times now for clarification on your accusations that Caraveo is  corrupted and profiteering off of cannabis overdoses. You got nuthin, apparently. I'm done, though V probably is not.

                  Try this: link to the legislation you object to. Say exactly what you have a problem with. Start there.

                  1. I edited my parent comment, chief. Dear god, your poor students. I hope you aren’t teaching Lit Comp.

                    How many times can I say HB 1317, and refer to the bill they talk about in the podcast this fucking thread is about before you do any legwork? The problem is the drafting of it, when it was passed, when it was revealed, who she listened to in composing it, and what parties were afforded the privilege to speak about it.

                    Here: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb21-1317

                    Christ, what a baby.

                    1. It’s not my responsibility to do your legwork. You brought up the issue. You do the research. Link to the bill. Or don’t you know how?

                      As far as my competence as a teacher and writer, at least I never wrote drivel such as

                      “Carouse hysterical parents…

                      Very medical. Not at all Anslinger/Nixon era politicking. Once again, she squandered millions of taxpayer funds for private rehabs and DA’s who will profit off her misrepresentation of her expertise.

                      The catholic schools bussing in students as punishment to speak to Colorado adults about what is right. I hope she fizzles and burns, because she sure as fuck isn’t listening.

                       

                       

                       

                    2. Now that you’ve finally posted the bill text to 1317, it’s hard to see what you’re so upset about. Mostly, the bill calls for and funds a  study to research emergency room admissions for toxic cardio and psych effects from over-consuming cannabis edibles.

                      There are also provisions which would seem to nullify aspects of amendment 64; requiring two separate physicians to authorize a medical cannabis prescription. ( Currently, it’s one). The bill would also cap at 8 grams the amount of  cannabis to be bought per day, ( 2 grams for 18-20 y o). 

                      I don’t agree with the double-doctor or gram limit provisions- but the research study seems harmless enough. 

                    3. Incidentally, kwtree, Methhead boy’s misuses of “bussing” is as comical as his misuse of “carouse.”

                      With two “s”es, bussing means kissing.

                      Our boy is quite the piece of work.

                      “The catholic schools bussing in students as punishment”

                    4. What was that V? My "what" of my missus? 

                      "Herp derp, what's a gerund?"

                      Oh Grandpa, you're so sad when you're tired! You start getting hung up on words! That poor, alcohol-soaked language area of your brain is too tired.  Just go to bed.

          3. Missed that you had insinuated my view was "I get your first; you don’t think cannabis should be regulated at all. No warning labels, sell to anyone with a plausible ID." 

            Do tell, how do you get that from my pointing out that she isn't using medical evidence? There's a giant leaping chasm between anarchy and prohibition and you know that.

      2. Hey, thanks for actually reading the content. The way you and your asshole cronies on here treat newcomers, you don’t exactly have a leg to stand on complaining about my alluding to facts and circumstances on which you have no grasp.

        Sorry, you demand a fourth grade reading level: you and your jerk pals are worse than the people who think Trump won 2020.

        Savvy?

        1. Gudolph/ SBG

          Your first post was confusing  word salad and you were justifiably mocked for it. Had you just admitted you screwed up, corrected the post, and then reasonably tried to answer the questions I and others had about the 1317  bill, I at least would have stopped hounding you for clarification. 

          V is a law unto himself; He’s posted something about fools being his “natural prey”. I’ve certainly gone rounds with him, and that will probably happen again next time we disagree.  You showed yourself to be quick to insult, quick to take a disagreement to a nasty personal level.   You escalated quickly into insulting my teaching ability and intelligence. You assumed I’m a male ( I’m not). You come across as surly, sarcastic, and condescending. In short, you showed yourself to be just as much of a dick as V could ever be. Not a good start on here. 

          The Bill ( HB 21-1317)
          It took 4 requests to get you to post a link to the bill. When I read it, it didn’t match your scorched -earth rhetoric about what it would do to Colorado’s cannabis entrepeneurs. It mainly funds a research study on the effects of edibles. There are some aspects of it that I dislike; it will make it more difficult for consumers ( such as veterans or victims with PTSD) who genuinely need it  to obtain medical cannabis.I expect that there will be lawsuits aplenty before it’s fully implemented…if it ever is. 
           

          Dr. Caraveo

          I suspect that the true purpose of your post was to trash Dr. Caraveo’s candidacy. You went after her medical credential, her assumed motives, her integrity right away. Are you supporting another candidate for HD8? Is there a personal issue ? 
           

          1. You are correct, I didn’t have the familiarity of the customs and the forum as others. And also correct that I was impassioned and quick to push back on the insults.

            You are incorrect that mockery is justified. You are friendly with V, and quick to defend him and join in juvenile attacks.

            Apologies to use the customary impersonal “he.” What are your preferred pronouns?

            You are all children and are a massive obstacle to progress. You never opened are avenue for polite conversation, you turned it into a personal attack, is at least joined in on it.

            You are an awful teacher, given you feel mockery is justified for people who don’t know as much as you.

            1. "You are friendly with V, and quick to defend him and join in juvenile attacks."

              You really are new to Pols. Everyone on here knows that there's no love lost between V. and KW.

              1. Well, apologies again and if I ever have occasion to refer to you I will of course respect that, now that I know.

                That's interesting you say you feel as if others on here don't have a sense of humor.  I see a lot of people who don't know that Poe's Law is demonstrably a slippery slope. 

                No, you assume everyone on here shares your worldview or just doesn't "get it." Hard to think of a more solipsistic point of hypocrisy than that, right? 

                Change your assumptions. And if someone doesn't appreciate your "justified mockery" (yeah, talk that one through at the next PT conference), that's on you for being a prick.

                  1. Grandpa, if you're gonna go on an antisemitic rant again, you won't get to watch baseball later.

                    If you just want to listen to some music, I can put on "Billy Joel." You and your friends used to listen to that all the time at the soda shop! Remember, Grandpa? 

                    OH GOD WHY DOESN'T HE REMEMBER crying SCREW DEMENTIA, YOU GUYS, IT'S SO SAD.

                    1. Boy are you dumb, racist/sexist/ageist/stonerboy.

                      Ask R and R to explain. I’m laughing too hard!

                1. Jesus Henry Fucking Christ on a tricycle….give it a rest, you two. 
                  .

                  I don’t know if Wagner wrote that, but I understand the Valkyries sang it in chorus. 

                  Pols, impersonating another Polster should be a bannable offense, if it isn’t. Ban Gudolph/SBG please

                  1. Fuck kwtree, ban them for not being able to take a joke. Me and Voyagina are just having a larf, right?

                    You have a lot to learn, kwtree.

                    It’s DEFINITELY just a me problem, and not a you lot are bullies and don’t like receiving what you dished out on me for no reason.

                    See, that last bit, that was me being sarcastic.  I’m not gonna ream you for not immediately picking up on that if you missed it.  

                    I’d rather not behave like a child. I’d like to move on. You all seem to be enjoying it too much to just do the same.

                    1. Inspired by a departed friend of yours, and the welcome shift in gears for kwtree, here's a recipe to enjoy this autumn season.  Goes great with saurkraut!

                      https://igotitfrommymaman.com/kaleh-pacheh-sheep-head-and-feet/

                      And while it does freeze well, the tongues and brains are a little too tender for that so it's best to just add and eat them hot with the rest.

            2. If we are all children, why are you here on a kiddie forum?

              Your obvious narcissism and conviction that you are an adult among children has removed any credibility  for which you may (or may not) yearn. Your ignorant prattle is tiresome and you are quite boring.

              You have much to learn, Grasshopper.

              1. Why am I on here now? Because you guys don't care about decorum, and think it's hunky dory to circlejerk (or circlerub, kwtree, no offense meant) each other in absolutely reproachful ways.

                Hey, y'all don't have flare. So no, I didn't know who is being sincere and who is not.  That's not something anyone can reasonably be expected to know, or to catch up on after a slew of insults.  

                Know your field.  You have the attitude of someone playing with live ammunition on a paintball course and doesn't see the issue 'cause you shouldn't have come to play paintball if you didn't want to accept a few gunshots occasionally.

                QAnon began this way.  A bunch of losers get high and mighty on their quarter of the internet and think saying whatever they want is fine.  What are your thoughts on that, and how on earth do you see any difference between you guys being "in" on the joke "Q"? Some "narcissist" (right, ad hominem will definitely take me down a peg in the public eye) like me wandering across this thread and seeing all the comments, defensive remarks for outright bigotry, and treating strangers like they're an interloper if they don't play along.

                So, yeah. You're kids, this is the game y'all seem to like to play. I got time to kill, and it sure seems to rankle Voyageur, et al. 

                No, I don't know you Duke. I don't know much about kwtree except that she is a teacher. I don't know anything about Voyageur.  Well, I know one thing about all y'all – you're not clever, or elite for behaving like 6-year-olds on who discovered South Park and Discord. 

                Ooooh, you know what would be great? Let's SWAT the next person to introduce themselves here! Hahaha, that stupid fuck.  And make sure whatever the issue is they care about, we do not under any circumstances address it at face value and with a modicum of conversational respect. No sir. Fuck their politics! What do they think this is, a politics sub?

                Do not call me Grasshopper, old man, you have no wisdom to impart.  

                1. Grasshopper!  Grasshopper!

                  Racist.

                  Sexist.

                  Ageist.

                  Grass, however, implies marijuana.  But most, not all, pot heads get mellow.  Your constant rage — and consistent mangling of language. — makes me think you’re a methhead.

                  is that what you do with your degree from Southern Arkansas State College?

                   

                  P.s. You’re right that we don’t have flare. Bunsen burners have flare. We Polsters have flair.
                  Tee hee.
                  You lose again!

                  1. WHAT, GRANDPA? THEY DON'T MAKE "GRASSHOPPER" MILKSHAKES ANYMORE. THAT HASN'T BEEN A THING IN DECADES. YOU'LL HAVE TO ASK FOR ANOTHER FLAVOR.

                    NO MARIJUANA FOR YOU. IT MAKES YOU PANIC AND CRY, REMEMBER, GRANDPA?

                    WHAT ABOUT CIRCUS PEANUTS? WAX NIPS? SUGAR-FREE CANDY CORN? THOSE ARE YOUR FAVORITE MILKESHAKE MIXINS!

                    1. Definitely, meth head class and stupidity.

                      I think, however, deliberately trying to impersonate another poster is a bannable offense. I think we can get you bounced for that.

                      Bye bye loser boy.

                    2. Grandpa, there's no "meth class."  Now you're REALLY overtired, aren't you, big guy?

                      Why don't you just TiVO your ballgame and go to bed.  You know you're not your best after 6pm, and you already had SO many accidents today. 

                      Look at this thread! It's filthy!

                  2. Grandpa, always ready with a spellchecker, thesaurus, whatever he needs!  

                    Poor guy… drank himself nearly to death after he failed out of his first career. His doctor, Dr. Caraveo, the one I obviously must have no policy-based problem with and surely must just hate because pot, she says that he suffers from brain damage affecting Wernicke's area. His communication skills are just awful, and he didn't really have much before the sun starting going down on him.

                    Poor guy.

                2. Yes. You don’t know me, or kwtree, or presumably anyone else here. 

                  Some of us have been on this forum for a long time (15 years for me) and we have seen hundreds of trolls. You are nothing special. 

                  And…since you object to my referring to you as “Grasshopper”, I will be glad to use a more appropriate appellation. Henceforth, you shall be known as  “Loudmouthed Asshole”. Does that work for you?

                   

                  1. Duke of Cocks, the smallest of Cocks, I humbly accept your moniker. I'm not sure I can fit it in with all the other lovely comments you, ahem "veterans" and definitely "non-troll" users have bestowed on me.  

                    But I will bear it in mind, D. Cock.

                    You guys should really petition ColoradoPols for a banner to list out all the names of you Knights of Pols, you brave heroes who have been…online…and have been… posting. 

                    Oooh.  Wow.  Such majestic. 

                  2. Some of us have been on this forum for a long time (15 years for me) and we have seen hundreds of trolls. You are nothing special. 

                    That's largely a matter of personal taste.  I don't think he's a good as Sergeant Slapdick or General Jesus or whatever that one guy called himself, but you've gotta admit this is some successful trolling. It's difficult to argue with the results.

                    1. For sheer viciousness, Gudolph is in a class by himself.  But looking at the frenzy and incoherence of his posts, I think I was right to conclude he is on meth, cocaine, or some other stimulant drug, not just his professed marijuana.  That means he will crash, hard, in a day or two and, if we’re lucky, crawl back under his racist, ageist, rock.  If he continues to afflict us, we can ask Alva to ban him.  His attempt to steal my identity, including my avatar and username, is a clear violation of the rules.

                    2. I'm not stealing your identity! I never once pretended to be you, you rapscallion! 

                       

                      Btw, *scratch* *scratch* y'all got anymore of that meth?

                    3. Ooh, you got me V. I've never touched meth in my life! That was a little fib. cheeky

                    4. Not really, Genghis. You are right, of course, that ones' taste in trolls is quite subjective…but I think you are wrong about this ones' level of success.

                      What measures the success of trolls anyway? This assclown has really only engaged with V. No props for that…anyone can do it.

                      This troll has three noticeable characteristics…verbosity, profanity, and childishness. I am finished feeding it.

                    5. Guys, we're gonna have to get more voices here on this.  Has anyone seen repealandreplace? What about kwtree?

                      Let's go ahead and get all the Knights of Pols out here so we can settle once and for who the REAL king of snowflake among you is!

                    6. You claim, dubiously, not to use meth.  What drugs do you use?  Cocaine?  Edible high-concentrate THC?

                      Drugs are your passion, not mine, and I might not even know the name of the powders you inhale.  But your frenzied, incoherent, inchoate, racist, sexist and ageist tirades are not just the hatreds of a normal troll.  Be honest, for once in your life.   What non-prescription are you using?

                      Definitely a hard-core druggie. No wonder he went ballistic at Rep. Caraveo.

                    7. "Be honest, for once in your life." 

                      How dare you, pappy! Our own Grandpa stinky, accusing me, his most favorite companion of being dishonest?!!
                       

                      I am not "juist" a troll. I'm me. I'm gudolph. I've been honest. I was honestly passionate, and you old farts were honestly disgusting in how you reacted. In this day and age, ain't nobody got time for that!

                      So, we can have an honest rap, Grandpa. Pull up a chair, sit on it backwards like the hip kids, and turn off the prick attitude. But you would have to tip your hand every now and again, and you have no track record for that. 

                      What you DO have a track record for is being insecure.  You are a sad, lonely, old man lying to himself and sitting in his own dooky. THAT is why you smell dogshit everywhere you look.

                    8. Oh, here's a thing I learned from you too…

                       

                      WHERE'S THE PROOF OF THE LIE!!!  YOU HAVE NO PROOOOFFF!!! Oh V, Tee Hee, you failed at the simplest of tasks to prove your astoundingly FALSE claim that I EVER PRETENDED TO BE YOU.

                      *KLAXONS* 

                      NOPE.  YOU LOSE.

                      Right? That's how you talked with CHB? So that's how adults talk, and now I get to be a Knight of Pol too.

                    9. Lonely — definitely not.  Surrounded by a loving family including, yes, two grandchildren.

                      You, on the other hand, are obviously single!

                      Why is that?

                      Tee hee.

                      Hahaha

                      Har de har har

                    10. V, you say I am a bunch of stuff, and have no proof.  Now it sounds even sadder when you pretend you have people in your life because it is also an obvious lie from a lonely old-man-smelling man like you 🙁

      1. "Gudolph."

        It was already in English, Smelly Old Fart!  UH OH, DID GRAMPY MAKE ANOTHER DOOKY? WHAT A STINKY OLD MAN. 

        You guys all like this, right? I'm learning so much on proper forum etiquette and how to be the perfect companion.

        This is SO much better than civil discourse!

      1. Carouse them, Genghis. I would like an instruction manual on that.

        It seems like it might be a mix of caress and arouse, but hysterical parents everywhere would def like the details.

        1. laugh

          Back in the day, "carouse" referred to getting hammered and raising hell. Maybe it still does. Haven't seen or heard the word used in decades.

          So then, is gudolph trying to say Dr. Caraveo rounds up "hysterical parents," gets 'em drunk and throws 'em a big, loud party?  If so, that might help her get elected, assuming a statistically significant number of voters in that new congressional district qualify as "hysterical parents."

          1. I spent many a night carousing in my younger days.  It’s a fine word, as is the archaic “reiver.”

            Pronounced “ree iv er” not “reeve er” .

              1. Gudolph the Red-Faced Stoner

                Babbled when he spoke.

                And if you tried to read it

                It was a really bad joke.

                All of the other Stoners

                Used to laugh and call him names

                They never let poor Gudolph

                Carouse in their stoner games.

                 

                Then one foggy four twenty

                A legislator came to say

                Gudolph has smoked so much THC

                He can’t communicate with the likes of we.

                That really hacked off Gudolph

                And he babbled most ferociously:

                I don’t need no steekin’ doctor

                Diagnosing what is wrong with me!

                    1. Sincerely, I have no idea what your position is apart from asshole.  

                      And I appreciate that you take that as a notch on your belt. That my feeling insulted is probably a major win for you too.  

                      Are you not a human, though? How can you come on here and just rip away with whatever fart comes out of your head and still think you are in any place to talk down to them?  Because you have been here commenting the same sad schtick every day you feel like you have any expertise or authority to speak of? 

                      Yes, you got under my skin. Get under my skin. Because I care about these things, and in this thread about this particular issue.  If you don't care, why spend so much effort letting the world know? That's not a win for you. That's the biggest "L" anyone can earn, pretending you don't care. 

                      And what I hate is that when people engage with trolls like you, like I am right now, I will invariably face the greater risk of being silenced by moderators. I should "know better" than to engage with you and so on. I can't even get a sympathetic ear here on the one progressive site for Colorado I was able to find.  Just the worth-nothing do-nothing naysayers like you setting the discussion back literally a century. Congratulations.

                      Ever regretfully your neighbor,

                      StonerBabbleGuy

                    2. Before you drown in self-pity, Stonerbabble guy, you might reflect on the fact that not a single voice has been raised in defense of your inchoate eructations.

                      Not one.
                      I see you copied my avatar in the hope that people might confuse your dullard musing with my far more lucid posts.
                      It won’t work, but imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!
                      Tee hee.

                    3. I’ll be that guy . . .

                      . . . I’ve been chuckling about the “Stonerbabbleguy” name since it first appeared here  — a sense of humor, good on you!  We’ve got more than our fair share of nasty, bullying, self-important, fucks here already — a self-important fuck with a sense of humor is sorta’ like a breath of fresh air.

                      And, the platypus works great with “stonerbabbleguy”; much better than with some lost, decrepit wanderer IMO.

                      My only suggestion here, SBG, would be to let this diary go; you’re already deep into our nitpicker zone and the Pols pickers of nits aren’t gonna’ not pick here once they get started.  (FYI: Some of the least uncivil people you’ll run into on this site are the ones who regularly decry and whine about other’s incivility.)

                      Lay out some insights on another diary; don’t let the bullying bastards get you down; and don’t waste your time on old dogs who’s best days of licking themselves are far gone memories.

                      Welcome!

                    4. That's not true, of course, Cookie.  I told him I didn't mind because it was his admission that I was his superior in every mea ningful way.  Druggie Dullard that he is, he missed the sarcasm.

                    5. I meant no one who matters​​​​​​ supports Stoner Babble Guy, Dio.  You're just the poor man's Lauren Boebert.

                    6. GRANDPA YOU'RE COMMENTING AT NO ONE AGAIN.  GO TAKE A NAP. "Dio" ISN'T HERE.

                      *sniff*… poor guy.

              2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/carouse

                “Carouse” tr. verb

                Definition 2 : To take part in a carouse : engage in dissolute behavior.

                https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dissolute

                “Dissolute” adv.

                Definition : marked by indulgence, lacking restraint.

                Calling the effect she had on the public’s histrionic attitudes about the serious problems of children gaining illegal access to the drugs “carouse” seemed appropriate enough to me. Calling a mob “drunk with anger” is appropriate, though I appreciate that it was apparently so cumbersome not to put more proofreading effort into it than national journals do. “Carouse” is a terrible word, obviously, and I SINCERELY thank everyone here for helping me see the error in not filtering the words in my head for the words the dummies on here need.

                What a sad state that my passion over her conduct is all anyone focuses on. Let’s piss and moan over diction all day, instead of talking about a democrat policymaker who works behind closed doors with republicans.

                No wonder Colorado’s MJ business is being shipped out of state.

                1. You bellowed that she “caroused hysterical parents” Stonerbabble guy.  Too much dope can turn brains into cat litter, and you are exhibit A.

                  Also, you need to learn The Law of Holes:
                  When you’re in one, stop digging.

    2. Asking respectfully, gudolph, would you mind repeating exactly what you're referencing in paragraphs #2 and #4? I have no idea what you are talking about. Specifics and actual details will be helpful.

      As an aside, I live in the 7th district, not the soon-to-be 8th district. But I am curious.

      1. Hey, thanks for asking for clarification and not dismissing me off hand.

        I clarified to Voyageur above about the gist of the post.  There are myriad problems with her efforts on the bill, not least of all is the lack of a clear problem to begin with. 

        Her position is entirely ensconced in hysteria from parents whose children have illegally abused the substance.  This is what I mean by "But the kidz" rhetoric. It's using children and their wellbeing as stand-ins for actual discourse on preventing substance abuse among youth.

        HB 1317 was originally intending to set a low, arbitrary (happy to be contradicted, but no one seems to be concerned with facts in this discussion) THC concentration level across the board. 
         

        Is there more you want to know specifically? There is literally nothing of good to speak of with the bill. It was leaked and she was upset to share details of it with the public.  The bill skirts existing legislation that sets up EXACTLY the sort of research she claims didn't already exist before throwing more money at it.

        I think I come off as crazy because there's no good starting point on this piece of shit bill she passed that she already hasn't framed disingenuously as coming from stoners (thanks, Voyaguer for the commentary) or from "big businesses" like locally run dispensaries.  

        1. To your 2nd paragraph, one of my biggest problems with her efforts on the bill were her alliances (see quote from Colorado Politics below). The bill started out much more far-reaching than the final version, which at least showed there was some consideration of floating fairly strong language and seeing what stuck. 

          Caraveo told Colorado Politics the initial draft amounted to a wish list from advocacy groups such as Smart Colorado, which aims to highlight the risks marijuana poses to youth.

          1. Exactly what is coloring my taste for her legislation.  It began behind closed doors with anonymous stakeholders, and regarding it being leaked, she's acted as if the leakers were bad faith actors.  

            Fundamentally, writing overly stringent legislation to see what you can get away with passing is not at all representation.

      1. Are you trying to say something about my purposeful redundancy to emphasize how often she brings up her degree in concert with her legislating? That “whooshing” sound was satire flying way over your head. Then again, given your attitude and username you likely hear a constant din up there.

      2. But how good of a doctor could she be?

        After all, does she have a show like Dr. Phil, or Dr. Oz, or Tucker Carlson?

        I'll bet she even hangs out in hospitals around sick people.

  2. Kevin Sabet is about as close as we come to having a modern-day Henry Anslinger. I assume he was lurking (or up to his elbows) in developing the wish list and narratives?   

    Wish I had time today to engage in this thread but it looks like it's in good hands!

     

    1. That’s assuming it’s possible to figure out what all the hoopla is about. If people want to smoke weed, that’s their business; same as for those who want to imbibe in alcohol. Myself, I’ve never smoked a single thing.

      If I absolutely have to inhale second hand smoke, I’ll do weed, sweet pipe tobacco, cigars, and ciggie-butts in that order. 

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

37 readers online now

Newsletter

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