President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 27, 2007 05:12 PM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

“One has a stronger hand when there’s more people playing your same cards.”

–George W. Bush


193 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread

  1. I guess when you’re playing with a partner, and you both have all the trump, you certainly do have a stronger hand than if they didn’t have any.

    Or if you’re playing something silly like Ace-Jack in hold ’em and the others in the pot have Jack-9 and Ace-6. 

    I guess.

    1. Maybe it’s time for an amendment requiring that the President must be fluent in English.  An IQ floor wouldn’t hurt either.  Nothing fancy, just average for starters.

      1. because you are now deployed?  I wouldn’t blame you.

        Don’t forget, global warming computer models show that the weather will swing widely, especially from place to place and over time.  That we are having a “bad” winter fits right into the projections.

        This is something the anti-GW crowd misses, see our peers right here on CP. 

        I know that you are too smart to not understand what I say.

        1. Still in Florida.  At least I’ve got a stash of good beer to help me through the 60-degree weather.

          Sure, it’s because of “wide swings in weather,” not because it’s, you know, *COLORADO* or anything.  When the data doesn’t fit the theory, expand the theory to allow the data – just don’t ever suggest that maybe the theory is wrong.

        2. that we don’t believe that the climate can change, any skimming of natural history will show that the climate has changed many times just in the period that man has lived on earth. 

          What is disturbing to us is the claim that man is the sole cause of the change and we must completely change our ways,  damage our economy and way of life in an attempt overcome an inevitable and natural change in environment.

          Mankind has survived a planet that has been both warmer and cooler than it is now, with much more primitive technology.  We are the ones who have to adapt to our planets changes, not try to stop them.

          1. has claimed that man was the SOLE cause. But given that, at no point in the earth’s history, has there been 6 billion people burning hundreds of millions, if not billions, of gallons of fuel and tons of coal every day, it’s pretty stupid not to think we’re playing a major part in it.

            1. should be our primary focus.  Trying to stop the global warming cycle or coming up with ways to deal with the inevitable changes? 

              We may exacerbate the change to an extent,  but I think it is foolish to assume that we are so supreme upon this planet as to think we can controll all aspects of its changes.  Nature is unpredictable, we can tame certain parts of it, but the vast majority of the world’s temperment is it’s own.  I have yet to see someone stop a hurricane or tornado.  We still have avalanches even in areas that are commonly used and lived in.  Rivers that man has lived by for thousands of years still flood, and the rain and snow generally fall when and where nature decrees.

              We can cut down on polluting forms of energy, but we have to acknowledge that in some cases not everyone will be happy with the choices.  The environmentalists are going to have to live with more hydro-electric and improvements in nuclear power if we are not to reduce our economic standards.  Solar and wind have great potential but require large amounts of land to be commercially viable as reliable sources of energy.  They will work well in areas with large open space (like Colorado and much of the Southwest)  but will be harder to place in more crowded urban areas.

              We need to listen less to the hype on both sides of this and start working with the facts if anything useful is to happen.

              1. Which do you think should be our primary focus.  Trying to stop the global warming cycle or coming up with ways to deal with the inevitable changes?

                Why can’t we do both? It’s going to take decades to cut back fossil fuel consumption (we don’t want to do it at the “Kyoto” pace after all, given that the countries following it are, shall we say, having problems meeting those goals) and the changes, as you say, are inevitible.

                We may exacerbate the change to an extent, but I think it is foolish to assume that we are so supreme upon this planet as to think we can controll all aspects of its changes.

                Agreed. Again, no one is claiming that humans are the sole cause, therefore we can only partially mitigate these changes – best case scenario, we mitigate the changes we caused. It’s probably too late to do that, and how would you measure that anyway.

                We can cut down on polluting forms of energy, but we have to acknowledge that in some cases not everyone will be happy with the choices.

                Absolutely. It will take consensus building and compromise. I think as the weather patterns become more lopsided it will be easier to get people to go along. I hope, anyway.

          2. “Neener, neener, I can’t hear you, my fingers are in my ears.”

            As I think Moynihan observed, “You are entitled to you own opinions, but not your own facts.”

            The wide variablilty in weather, oceain currents, etc. was predicted as part of the rise in temperatures many, many years ago, not after the fact. 

            BTW, that pinko commie organization the DOD considers climate disaster as one of the possible scenarios in the next century.  The short scenario is that the Gulf Stream stops bringing warm air to Europe, it just effin stops.  Europe’s temperatures and food supplies stop, dare I say, cold.  Massive unrest, emmigration, political turnmoil.

            The Army would wouldn’t pursue this if they didnt’t think that GW was scientificially supported.

            1. it wasn’t happening?  My point is that we may spend too much time and effort in trying to stop something that won’t be stopped, and not getting ready to deal with the reality of what will happen.

              The DOD plots out a lot of possible scenarios for the future.  Some are more likely than others.  We have had ice ages before and have survived.  The big difference is that due to the advances in medicine and technology we have a much larger population to contend with.  Instead of migrating tribes, retreating before the cold, we will have nations who will need help in either feeding themselves or moving their populations to climates that will support them.  We can start planning on this without war by using the technology that some people want to blame for the problem, or we can let our military sort it out.

              1. You say:

                or moving their populations to climates that will support them.  We can start planning on this without war by using the technology that some people want to blame for the problem, or we can let our military sort it out.

                Where do we move people to – Iraq? Gee that would work well – we’re shipping 100 million Americans over there permanently – say hello to your new neighbor.

                Or more likely, Iraq becomes totally inhospitable – do we move all 35 million of them here? Gee that would work well…

                1. Leaving people to try to survive in an inhospitable and/or unliveable environment?  One way or another they will find somewhere else to live under those circumstances.  We can plan to do it peacefully or we can face the result of desperate people, perhaps with WMD’s. 

                  We are talking long term planning here, trying to avoid a desperate last minute (so to speak) race against disaster.  Obviously we are talking worse-case scenario, it may be that all we have to do is stop subsidizing farmers to not grow crops so we can help meet global needs.  The point is we can’t just pretend that if we change everything about how we live, global warming will go away.

          3. insofar as preventing human disaster.

            To just say, “Oh well, whatever happens happens” plays right into the propaganda of the corporate world that doesn’t want to do anything differently.  To acknowledge that GW is a threat to peoples would require uncomfortable decisions. 

            You don’t need to believe that it is caused by humans – despite every ton of evidence that it is – but you should be concerned about massive disruptions of food supplies, forced immigrations, and even the polar bears.

            And also because my family’s biggest asset is only five feet above sea level in Florida!  🙂

          4. Amazon link – it is not about global warming. But what it does address is how societites that do not address their effect on the environment fail.

            Global warming has a lot of causes. The human race is a big one, but not the only one. But even if the cause had nothing to do with human activity, we would still have to address it.

            If the climate changes significantly it will cause enormous problems for us. It doesn’t matter if we end up with as much farmland, if it moves then the farms have to move – year by year. And they may have to move to locations that are not friendly to Amrecian farmers showing up.

            Same for costal cities. It doesn’t matter if there is a new location it can move to – the expense of building a new city is beyone even the US. Look at New Orleans – we can’t even repair a city partially devastated.

            What we do or don’t do will decide if we end up like Iceland, or like Easter Island.

            – dave

            1. He had me all the way to the last chapter, where he ignored the entire book he’d just written on the cyclical nature of climate change (better climate = more expansion, worse climate = bye-bye expansion) and bit into the “This time it’s all our fault so we need to destroy civilization before civilization’s destroyed” meme hook, line, and sinker.

              Does adapting mean developing crops that don’t use as much water?  Absolutely.  Does it mean we crush economic powerhouses that aren’t up-and-coming Communist governments?  Hell no.

              1. He’s off-base on a lot. But his basic research is solid and that part is good. Seperate his opinion from that basic research and global warming gets even more scary in terms of the history of human development (and decline).

            2. Diamond’s research on Easter Island has been thoroughly disproven to the point of disgrace.  Easter Island went through a series of genocidal wars that Diamond creatively ignored.

      1. As a frequent traveler to Tel Aviv (which is where this scene is filmed), I can tell you that this is not far off from reality. 

      1. Robin Hood,

        You never told us you do Hungarian rap on your spare time!

        That is quite possibly the funniest thing I have seen on You Tube in a long, long while.  Unbelievable.

    1. But haven’t gotten one. But then I don’t have a home phone. I use my cell for everything.

      I did a little checking and have been told some of the recipients of these calls recognized the voice as the spokesperson for Dennis Gallagher. His name is also Denis but I have forgotten his last name. When I first heard of it I thought it sounded like a Gallagher stunt.

      The calls, by the way, are illegal because they do not identify what, if any, campaign committee they are calling from. Even 527’s have to give that much info. There is no registered committee supporting 1A, so this makes the calls even more suspect. Who’s paying for them? Gallagher himself? is he doing illegal fund raising?

      Keep in mind this is the man who is running for re-election as auditor.

        1. Most of the city’s campaign finance laws refer back top the statre statutes. The only real changes for Denver municipal elections is the reporting schedule which is spelled out in city ordinance.

    1. Is there a dress code?

      I think the last time I was at one of these brave American displays of patriotic protest it was a tye-dye feather headdress, tye-dye leggings, and rainbow mittens (for cold weather events only.  Oh, and it was BYOPAP (Bring Your Own Pots And Pans).

      I’ll see you there, Robin.  I’ll be the dude with a peace-sign-shaped mohawk.

    2. I’m saving up to protest the DNC in Denver.
      Nothing worse than a bunch of anti American, tree hugging, commie lovin, welfare pushing, tax raising, socialist hippy Democrat liberal lefties…….invading our red all American conservative state.


        1. Statewide Democrats took the governorship in a walk. And almost took everything else including the AG where the Democrat was someone no one knew – or knows.

          BWB’s old seat went Democratic.

          I believe not a single incumbent Democrat in the entire state lost. Not one.

          The legislature became more Democratic.

          Can you name a single true Republican victory in the state this past election? Best example is Secretary of State where the Republicans barely kept it.

        1. slurs?
          Doc and I provide nothing less than absolute facts and proven words of complete conservative wisdom.

          What, you don’t believe me?
          Ask us, we’ll tell ya.

          1. Then tell me and the G-Man we’re being incendiary.  Everybody thinks Colorado’s gone blue.  You haven’t seen blue until you’ve seen the Democrat circu…I mean…Convention troops.  Blue America is 180 degree from Red America.  I’m proud to be living in God blessed Red America.

    3. I read this morning that Jane Fonda, that admitted commie loving “C word” was at this rally. Oh boy. That does a lot of good for their cause huh?
      I’m surprised nobody has assasinated her in all the years since Nam.
      I go to a bar occasionally called “The Sufferin’ Bastard”.
      In their urinal they had two stickers of that worthless pile of flesh, so we can all piss on her and what she stands for.
      This bar by the way is owned and is a club hangout for a Vietnam Vets biker club.
      I wonder what they think of this itty bitty rally?

      1. “Worthless pile of flesh” (probably the flesh you would have loved to enjoy at one time) is entitled to her opinions and to express them as she chooses.

        In case you aren’t aware, Fonda has said that what she did in N. Viet Nam was wrong.  That’s more than the American bombers killing civilians Hanoi have done. 

        Frankly, I don’t give a rat’s ass what a bunch of VN vet bikers think.  Thirty years later and they still haven’t grown up out of their machismo.  But they aren’t strong enough to look deeply into their souls, it would be too scary. I’m not denigrating their service, willing or not, just the “me big bad man” attitude. It’s facade.

        Fonda is like Hillary, just the name sets of the right wing like a bunch of barking dogs with a light going on in the night. Doesn’t really matter what the facts are, the media machine has taugh y’ll to bark, just like those dogs. Mindless, substanceless anger.

        Why don’t you pick on someone who is a real traitor to American ideals and just keeps on killing innocents and soldiers alike.  Say, like, George Bush.  Now there’s a waste of flesh and a good education.

        1. is a snuggy bear.
          You will get quite the responce, I’m sure.
          And now the pond scum is doing it all over again. Shows just how sorry she is for spitting on so many soldiers. Next thing she’ll join the lunatic Islamics and buy them some bazookas.
          Oh wait, they wouldn’t let her because women over there are not allowed to be seen or heard.
          I guess they would have to kill her too.

          1. Spat on soldiers?  Come one, right wing urban legend. In fact, it is she that has been spit upon.

            If you bother to go to pretty much the bottom of the page at… you can read her apologies and some good perspectives on free speech. 

            Understand, I don’t really care about Jane Fonda one way or another, what she did or didn’t do.  But I defend her free speech rights. 

            She has far more class that all those chimpanzees jumping up and down screeching when her name is mentioned.  Get a life.

            1. If the right doesn’t concentrate on people they hate, then they have to discuss issues. And on that subject they lose.

              So instead they concentrate on villifying individuals. And making up stuff about them.

              – dave

              1. Do a google search on Jane Fonda and the Vietnam war.
                Check out the pictures of her posing in front of communist guns.
                She out and out gave aid, money, and support to the Viet Cong.
                Then go ask any Vietnam Vet what they think of her…….

                It is funny. That miserable hide did all that work to try and help the enemy defeat us but for some strange reason she lives in the USA.

                One would think she should reside in North Vietnam.
                I wonder why she doesn’t.
                And now her true America hating colors are coming out again in her hatred of America.
                I’d like to know why she doesn’t take up residence in Baghdad.

  2. Ought we not have odds on the Big Line for when the snow melts?  The record for Denver is 67 days straight with snow on the ground and I think we’re at 39 today. I’d have no problem with the snow sticking around for, oh, say, maybe a couple of years so that our good friends from San Francisco here for the Democrat Convention can “enjoy” the white stuff. *Snicker* *snicker*.

      1. But apparently he promised not to do the whole flood rigamarole again.  He symbolized that promise with the rainbow.  It’s not a coincidence that when you were in SF you were inside of the country’s biggest rainbow.  God was telling you that he wasn’t going to drown us.  No, instead he’s bringin the blizzard and he’s gonna make us so stir-crazy we repent Golden-Calf-style for our frigtarded election last year.

          1. She said she’s really upset about them invoking her name for efforts that go directly against the teachings of her son.

            Or as the bumper sticker said “Jesus is coming, and boy is he pissed.”

            – dave

  3. Speaking of Bushs low polls, Giulini states:

    “I don’t imagine that they had those favorable/unfavorable things back during the Civil War,” but Lincoln would not have fared well, Giuliani said.

    Seeming to draw present-day comparisons, Giuliani noted that Lincoln even faced riots in New York City because people were unhappy with the war. “They wanted to quit because it was getting too tough.”

    Both statements are ludicrous. There were many political sects in Lincolns day, including all flavors of abolitionists and pro-slavery groups. Many, many hated Lincoln and were quite vocal. The riots in new York were anti-draft riots; the issue inflamed because an individual could buy their way out of the draft for $300, making it a class warfare subject.

    He has an intellect similar to Bush, and is decidedly not presidential material.

    1. It would add vehicles and businesses to places where “Make My Day” apply.  I approve.  But it also sets the parameters for when you are justified in using lethal force to protect yourself.  The law reads that you can use force if you “have reasonable fear” or something like that.  So the new law would clarify that if, for example, a five year old girl came walzing into Dairy Queen, you cannot presume that she’s carrying a sawed-off shotgun about to blow your head off.  That would be murder if you shot her.

      Seriously, it would simply set parameters.  I was obviously kidding about the little girl but it sounds like a pretty harmless bill–maybe even a good one.

      1. Eons ago I was a cop.

        When I took firearms training, the two things I remember were the training officer telling me that (1) most cops who are shot are shot with their own guns and (2) most gun fights happen in the dark at a range of less than 10 feet, and you will be so scard, about all you will be able to do is pull the trigger and make noise.  He told me “Never carry anything that would not mind being shot with.”  “Never carry big guns that make a big flash, ’cause while you’re sh%#$!ing your pants in a firefight, you’ll be blinded by the flash and recoil of the first shot and you won’t get a second shot.”

        Over the years, his observations turned out to be completely accurate.  Among my collegues who were shot, only two were NOT shot with their own guns.  The typical cop shooting was a stupid accident — one guy shot his girlfriend in the butt while they were “involved” on the couch; one guy shot himself in the foot removing his gun  from under the seat of his VW.  Guys who carried 44 mags and Dirty Harry style weapons got hurt the worst.  And these were PROFESSIONALS.

        People who believe they are safer carrying concealed weapons have never been in a real-world gun fight and have never carryed a gun 24/7.  I tore my clothes carrying concealed guns, I tore the upholstry in furniture and in my car.  Body sweat rusted the weapons.  I dropped them in the snow and puddles.  I had to wear a coat in the Summer to conceal my gun.  At some point I realized, “Hey, if I got into a bad situation, there’s no f&^!ing way I could fast draw this hog leg out from under my clothes, and then aim it and shoot a bad guy in the dark.”  I quit carrying a gun.  It was a stupid crutch that really didn’t make me any safer.

        I went to scores of shootings in my career.  Most of them were family members shooting each other, suicides where a gun was handy, or gang members shooting each other (good riddance).  I can only remember one shooting involving a homeowner killing a burglar, and the burglar was the ex-husband of the homeowner’s girlfriend, so it was really just another pointless domestic killing.  I can only remember one killing involving a liquor store owner killing a robber.

        If you really wanted a gun for protection, the best one would be a “girly gun” — a 25 caliber automatic.  Fits in your pocket, won’t hurt you bad when you shoot yourself with it, about as accurate as it gets in an adrenaline laced 10 foot urban firefight, if you shoot your wife with it she probably won’t die.

        Colorado regulates second hand smoking in bars, restaurants and casinos.  If the the legislature really wants to protect people from themselves, it would have a bigger impact by repealing Make My Day laws than outlawing cigarettes from bars, restaurants and casinos.

        1. Thanks bpilgram. Thanks for your law enforcement service. It would appear, from the little I know you, that you were a conscientious, smart cop.

          We need your types fighting the “war on terror”…not the Rambo/Bushit types currently in charge.

          Vote for Peace.

        2. …some perspectives that I’ve not heard and that make sense. 

          I try to understand the gun lover’s point of view.  I have a son-in-law who hunts.  I have no problem with that. (Although recently my daughter told me that their venisons costs them $8-$10 a pound, all told!)  I did the NRA Safe Hunter course when I was in the Boy Scouts, and have owned a couple of manly .22’s.  I recognize that although we’ve been arguing about the intent of the Second Amendment for two hundred years, the de facto result is that we do allow weapons, instead of banning them like in Mexico. 

          Your information here sort of proves the point about gun ownership, even with professional training.  BTW, my sister, a deputy sheriff in Florida usually outdoes the guys on the range and in the driving tests. He he.

        3. 1.  I tore my clothes carrying concealed guns, I tore the upholstry in furniture and in my car.

          Who chose the gun you carried?  They have been making guns specifically to be carried concealed for over 50 years.  If your gun was snagging on clothing and upholstry it was completely unsuited for the task.  A proper concealed carry has rounded edges and maybe a hammerless action.

          2.  Body sweat rusted the weapons.  I dropped them in the snow and puddles.

          Okay, basic firearms 101 says:  You clean your weapon on a regular basis, used or not.  Obviously you never applied this basic rule to maintaining your firearms.  I would never trust my safety to someone who admitted they had a weapon (or any other tool) they allowed to rust.

          3.  I had to wear a coat in the Summer to conceal my gun.  At some point I realized, “Hey, if I got into a bad situation, there’s no f&^!ing way I could fast draw this hog leg out from under my clothes, and then aim it and shoot a bad guy in the dark.”

          I have to agree that trying to conceal that you are carrying in the summer is a bitch.  However, if you are trying to conceal anything that can be considered a “hog leg” you are definitely carrying the wrong kind of gun to try and conceal.

          The rest of what you say are personal observations on your experience and I will respect the views you have developed from them even as I disagree.  It is all to easy to become familiar with a firearm as you carry it on a regular basis and then get contemptuous of the danger it can represent.

          1. Most of what Bp says is simple firearm safety and has nothing to do with Colorado’s Make-My-Day law.  Make my day has to do with protecting yourself and your property–concealed carry is something tangential to MMD.

          2. and effort no matter what you do, just to play civilian cop.  Wrong gun, clean it more often, whatever.  Considering that a civilian will probably never use the gun, why bother?  “Just in case?”  Just in case the moon falls tomorrow. 

    2. The Colorado CCW (concealed carry weapon) database is supposed to sunset this Summer.  1174 would make the database permanent.  The problem with that is that there are numerous cases of abuse by officers and investigators.  The sponsor of the bill actually tried putting safeguards into 1174 but the gun-haters knocked it down–leaving it vulnerable to permanent intrusions on gun-owners’ privacy.

      1. Not in the 2nd Amendment, nor anywhere else.  I don’t hate guns, see previous post.  But nowhere do I find a prohibition against regulations, databases, etc. in the Constitution.  Gun owners have this Red Sky, wasn’t that the movie name, masturbation of blowing the Ruskies and Chinks back to their evil lairs with their 50 calibers and canned freeze dried foods. 

        The Iraqi people are killing so many of our high tech equipped soldiers with frickin’ roadside bombs.  Who needs a gun?

      2. but I definately DO believe in them.
        My wife keeps a 22 double acting revolver in her purse. No round in the chamber but all she has to do is pull the trigger. Hopefully she will never be in a position to have to use it. But I do know she wouldn’t hesitate to use it if needed.
        (One night about 25 years ago I was out late and when I came home I wanted to pull a prank on my then fairly new wife. I snuck up outside and started rattling the door and windows like a burglar. Next thing I knew she came out the door, my 44 locked in both hands, cocked, looking for the asshole trying to get in.
        Not the defensless type. I learned my lesson that night. Don’t fool with ANY woman when there is a gun around!)

        Since my kids are all up and out, I now have a 44 and a 38 in both our bedroom nightstands, a 410 on a rack in the hallway, and a 45 in the nightstand of my 5th wheel.
        All loaded of course. An empty gun is as good a baseball…..
        I have never been in a position to have to use them but will not hesitate to shoot any fu%&er that tries to get in my house. That I am sure of. My job is to protect my wife. And I’d die doing it.

        The rest of my guns and rifles are locked up in a safe, in case of a break in and I’m not home.

        1. You have SEVEN FULLY LOADED GUNS in your household, none under lock and key, PLUS “the rest” of your arsenal locked up in a safe – and you say you’re NOT a “full fledged gun nut”?

          What’s it take to be a “full fledged” one in the eyes of the NRA: having a bazooka in your car and an M-16 in every bedroom?

          (Just joshing of course. I, um, want to stay on your good side…”

          1. That’s some arsenal.  Always remember what a good friend I’ve been to you.  Even if I accidentally cut you off on the highway or something.  I didn’t mean to, really. 

            My Dad once woke up to an intruder in his bedroom and emptied his revolver into my mother, who was returning from the bathroom.  Fortunately, she had the fortitude (or premonition) to have unloaded the gun prior to what could have been her last night.  After that, all guns were kept unloaded and in a locked closet. 

            Guns don’t kill people, groggy people with loaded guns next to the bed kill people.

            1. chest thumping “I am man” bit. Actually most of my buddies have way more guns than I do.
              My point is what good is a gun if it unloaded? Many people take the clip out and put it in one drawer. Put the gun in another. And the bullets in yet another. Great if you have itty bitty kids around, but what would you do when the bad guy busts in? I don’t think asking him to hold on while I turn the lights on and gather all the parts to my gun will work……..

              As far as the intruder bit goes, my situation is such that my three little yappy dogs (mini dacshunds) would alert me in the event of someone coming in the house. But they don’t make a sound when they know we are up doing a tinkle or whatever.
              And I am close enough to the front door that I can hear it open easily. So the chance of me shooting the ‘ol lady is quite low.
              But on the other hand, I have her insured for $225,000.00.

        2. I’m still a gun owner, ’cause it’s fun to shoot, but at this point in my life, my guns are virtual antiques, so pulling the trigger is kinda iffy .

          But I don’t own guns and stock them throughout my house in preparation to kill people with them.  I’m not that afraid of the world I live in.  If my neighborhood was so bad that it warranted stocking my house with loaded guns in preparation for wholesale societal meltdown, I’d move.  Whatever our society is, it’s not the wild west.

          That said, I also don’t want the government telling me what I can and cannot own.  I’m an adult and can and should make those choices.

          I, too, would protect my family with my life, but the sad facts are that loaded guns in house more often get used against family members either in accidents, suicides or in a family fight against family members or cops.

          When I was a cop, I often had to stare down gun barrels and calm down husbands who wanted to kill me because I showed up to mediate their domestic dispute.  Luckily, my family didn’t lose me to some kook who had a gun handy and used it to defend his right to fight with his wife.  Day-to-day police work is about mediating heavily armed family fights and not about fighting terrorists or heavily armed bank robbers.

          One of the saddest experiences I had was a neighbor and friend — also a cop — who fought with his wife, shot and killed her, and then killed their beloved dogs, called the dispatcher and killed himself. I don’t know whether this all would have happened regardless of guns, but I can’t help feel like keeping his service revolver loaded and “handy” wasn’t helpful in the resolution of his personal problems.

          I kinda got a different perspective after stepping over somebody’s spouse with a bullet hole in him/her to collect the gun from the floor (suicides and accidents) or some family member (murders over pointless arguments).

          In residential burglaries, the thing that’s almost always stolen are guns.  Those guns get sold to crooks and low lifes who typically use them to settle gang disputes, against cops or on their own family members.

          The first search warrant I executed was to arrest a 14 year old kid who broke into his neighbors’ houses to steal Christmas presents to give to his mom.  Discovering a break in is really trumatic, and the desire for revenge is great.  He had loads of personal problems, but does he deserve to die at the hands of a Make My Day homeowner protecting his property?  Should I have just shot him rather than arrest him?  Make My Day laws presume that killing trespassers is prefered to criminal prosecution.

          IMHO, Make My Day proponents have watched too many Dirty Harry, Mad Max and Death Wish movies.  There’s just not a brigade of marauding bikers just waiting to break into everyone’s house, rape their wifes and eat their children.

          There’s too many guns in our society to start over, so we are where we are.  However, unfortunately, there are too many people who think the height of manliness is killing somebody with gun or enforcing their “rights” (e.g., protecting their property rights) at the point of a gun.

          I don’t mean to wax religous, but Jesus never killed anyone or taught people to kill to defend property.  Temples and churches aren’t stocked with guns to ward off the unholy. Many churches are left unlocked because they believe society is not on the verge of collapse and the hearts of men are basically good.  I recently returned from New York – which everyone knows is the most dangerous city in the country — where, after 11PM at night my wife and I walked into St Patricks (unlocked) and St Anthony’s (also unlocked) cathedrals.  Nobody stalked us on the street, or tried to rob, rape and kill us. Bums and low-lifes hadn’t ransacked the churches.

          Thou shalt not kill is one of the ten Commandments, and it’s not qualified by “except to protect your property from trespassers or if you’re really scard.” 

          Life’s too short to live in fear.

          OK, I’m stepping down from my soapbaox now (before somebody shoots me) …

          1. Then only the criminals will be armed.
            Naw, don’t think so.
            I said before, my guns are simply handy. And the only one out in the open is my 410 single shot.
            I will not give up my guns just because someone somehwere got shot.
            And I live in a fine neighborhood, but that does’t matter. Bad guys break into the nicest homes around, looking for shit to steal to sell for drug habits and such. Or looking for women to rape……….
            People in the Broadmoor get broken into all the time. So the bad neighborhood scenerio doesn’t cut it.

            Look, Ya’ll must have overlooked the part when I said loaded guns are dangerous when kids are around. But once they are grown up and gone, I think EVERY home in America should have at least one loaded gun in it.
            Then the perps won’t be the only ones that are armed.
            Next time someone is killed or raped while in the comfort and safety of their own home, what would you tell them?
            “Gee, you were a little unlucky I guess?” or “At least you didn’t have a gun around becuase you might have accidentally hurt someone?”

            My dad had a bumper sticker once that read “An Armed Society Is A Polite Society”.
            Think about it.

            1. Many times. It’s assinine. 

              It’s a cliche.  There are no guns in Japan or Mexico and they are polite people.  Generally, much more so than here.

              Think about it.

          2. bpilgram – very eloquent and persuasive

            gecko – life is percentages. But you are much more likely to be killed while riding your bike than to have an intruder in your house while you are there.

            And having a loaded gun, it is more likely to be used against a family member. And I would guess that in almost evey househld where a family member is killed with a gun kept there to defend the house – they were sure it would only be used for protection.

            It’s not what you think, it’s how it gets used in practice. Just like 80% of drivers think they are above average drivers – your own self-perception is likely wrong.

        3. HAVE SEVEN GUNS?

          Would you feel the same way if your wife had killed you?  🙂  Talk about a disconnect, not learning a lesson.

          I keep a big can of pepper spray by my bed and one in the left door pocket of my car.  I would guess that I’m 95% as well protected as you in real world probabilities, and I won’t kill an innocent bystander or shoot myself.

          What would the gun nuts do without crime to justify their steely masturbations?  Oh, yeah, pretend the gummint is coming to take you away.

          1. are inspired by this song:


            “Trigger Happy”

            Got an AK-47, well you know it makes me feel alright
            Got an Uzi by my pillow, helps me sleep a little better at night
            There’s no feeling any greter
            Than to shoot first and ask questions later
            Now I’m trigger happy, trigger happy every day

            Well, you can’t take my guns away, I got a constitutional right
            Yeah, I gotta be ready if the Commies attack us tonight
            I’ll blow their brains out with my Smith and Wesson
            That ought to teach them all a darn good lesson
            Now I’m trigger happy, trigger happy every day

            (Oh yeah, I’m)trigger, trigger happy
            Yes I’m trigger, trigger happy
            (Oh baby, I’m)trigger, trigger happy
            Yes I’m trigger, trigger happy
            (Oh I’m so)trigger, trigger happy
            Yes I’m trigger, trigger happy
            Better watch out, punk, or I’m gonna have to blow you away

            Oh, I accidently shot daddy last night in the den
            I mistook him in the dark for a drug-crazed Nazi again
            Now why’d you have to get so mad?
            It was just a lousy flesh wound, Dad
            You know, I’m trigger happy, trigger happy every day

            Oh, I still haven’t figured out the safety on my rifle yet
            Little Fluffy took a round, better take him to the vet
            I filled that kitty cat so full of lead
            We’ll have to use him for a pencil instead
            Well, I’m so trigger happy, trigger happy every day

            (Oh yeah, I’m)trigger, trigger happy
            Yes I’m trigger, trigger happy
            (Oh baby, I’m)trigger, trigger happy
            Yes I’m trigger, trigger happy
            (Oh I’m so)trigger, trigger happy
            Yes I’m trigger, trigger happy
            Better watch out, punk, or I’m gonna have to blow you away

            Come on and grab your ammo
            What have you got to lose?
            We’ll all get liquored up
            And shoot at anything that moves

            Got a brand new semi-automatic weapon with a laser sight
            Oh, I’m prayin’ somebody tries to break in here tonight
            I always keep a Magnum in my trunk
            You better ask yourself, do you feel lucky, punk?
            Because I’m trigger happy, trigger happy every day

            (Oh yeah, I’m)trigger, trigger happy
            Yes I’m trigger, trigger happy
            (Oh baby, I’m)trigger, trigger happy
            Yes I’m trigger, trigger happy
            (Oh I’m so)trigger, trigger happy
            Yes I’m trigger, trigger happy
            Better watch out, punk, or I’m gonna have to blow you away

            [ ]

            It so defines us!

            Well, not really, I just love Weird Al. ;>)

          2. Don’t mess around outside a house unless you know they are unarmed.

            Seriously, what the hell good is a can of pepper spray if the joker busting in has a 38? or a big knife?
            Kinda like the old saying about bringing a knife to a gun fight…..we know who is going to win.

            I don’t go around looking for trouble with my guns. Or even drive in my trucks with my guns. (Although my wife does. Nobody is going to take her down without a 22 slug in their head.)
            But my home is different. There is no way in hell that I’m going to sit around and just hope the bad people of the world pick on another house, just for the VERY slim chance that I might have an accident with one of them. (I don’t like the idea of having to throw a defective can of pepper spray at a dude lunging at me with a butcher knife.)
            The only accident will be the asshole drugged out dead man that busts in.
            Other than that, my guns will be safe and sound, but ready.

            1. Except in the movies, the guns in the hands of America aren’t used to kill perps.  They’re used to kill wives, kids and cops.

              Except in the movies, the “perps” aren’t drugged out dudes breaking into your house with a butcher knife to rape your wife.  They are, for the most part, your neighbor’s 14 year old son who’s your son’s friend.

              Concealed weapons permits and Make My Day laws all pander to fears that are irrational, and, at the end of the day, are a bigger danger to families than the threat they allegedly protect against.

              1. let’s all give up our guns. Everybody in America.
                Then only the cops (which are never around at the time of a crime) and the wacko looking to break in rob ya (possibly kill you and rape your wife and daughters too) will be armed.
                Gosh for some reason that doesn’t sound so great to me.

                What do you propose in your rose colored glass world should we do to protect ourselves?
                Asking pretty please go away might not work.

                1. There are risks on having no guns, having guns that are securely locked and hidden, and having a loaded gun at hand. Each comes with pluses and minuses.

                  Statistically, safest is no gun – but you then face different risks.

                  New England Journal of Medicine

                  American Journal of Epidemiology

                  Journal Watch

                  Lots more on google

                  Keeping a loaded gun at home makes you less safe. It does change who is more likely to kill you – in your case your wife instead of an intruder. But it does make you less safe.

            2. Guns don’t always win, in fact often don’t in the heat of an altercation.

              How about that recent case in NY or Philly where something like six officers unloaded their weapons and I think ONE person was struck.  That’s out of like maybe 60 or more rounds? 

              We read about it all the time, multiple shots being fired by trained professionals and they don’t do shit. 

              I would guess that in all these hypothetical burglaries than gun nuts love to anticipate, who is in control is more important than the weapon.  If I’m asleep and suddently there is someone standing by my bed with a gun pointed at me, it won’t matter if I had a sawed off shotgun in the drawer.  It won’t matter to you, either.  Game over.

              No worse than my pepper spray. 

          3. Good use of imagery, but I think I’ll delete the image.

            I have no guns, no pepper spray, no black belt in karate.  I guess I’m a sitting duck.  Come get me bad guys!  Oh wait, I do have yippy little dogs, so I’ll know when I’m under attack. I defend Gecko’s right to have whatever guns he wants, loaded or unloaded (since the kids are grown), but I know if I had a loaded gun, the bad guys would easily wrestle it away and kill me with it.  I’m safer hiding in the closet.

            (Damn dogs would lead them right to me.  Doh!)

              1. to bring a new insight into things, often taking a position that is opposite of what we might expect.  And always writing with a deftness that defuses anger like you and I display.

  4. Mitt Romney is the keynote speaker and he apparently went over like gangbusters.  Jeb Bush was also very well-received.  He refused to say no to a 2008 run.  Romney spoke very well and further established himself as 2008s conservative candidate.

    You can get a play-by-play at


    or see video at


    1. The party of ignorance, corporate and Bush bootlicking, greed, international ineptness and outright lies. A party willing to enslave Americans so the rich can get richer.

      No one cares. It’s a dead party…for many years.

      The Republicans remind me of the guy who, after killing his parents, and awaiting sentencing, says to the Judge, “Have mercy on me, I’m just a poor orphan.”

        1.   Then again it might get a little awkward when the V.P. nominee demands to see the presidential nominee’s wife’s immigration papers. 
            The only thing to add to that ticket would B.W.B. for U.S. Senate.

    1. I just thought that, as a nation, we were ready to move beyond this kind of racist, belligerant ignorance of reality.  I am now ready to admit that I’m wrong.  First we have every right-wing pundit in the country working to ensure that everyone knows that Barack’s middle name is Hussein.  Then the Washington Times and their affiliates make up lies about supposed childhood activities (thank God CNN saw fit to really investigate).  Now our latest right-wing shill here decides to make subtle attempts to link Barack’s name to terrorists.

      For God’s sake, do you people really have so little to say about this man’s beliefs, values, and ideas?  Whatever.  Go away.

      1. Isn’t  the Washington Times owned by the Unification Church? The Church of  the Reverend Moon? His devotees were known as Moonies, back in the day.  I always found it fascinating that the right wing used the Washington Time as the “bible” so to speak, of conservative journalism. 

        1. The WT has been a money sink for the Rev. Moon.  It bleeds red ink, and you can take that both ways!

          A lot of the righward shift in this country over the last forty years is because of BILLIONS of dollars spent subverting democracy by the likes of Moon, Coors, and Richard Melon Scaife (sp?).

          What’s interesting, is that after all this time and all these BILLIONS of dollars and running crooked elections, they still can barely get 51% of the public’s votes.

  5. Congressional Quarterly’s blog seems to think that Scott McInnis is the Colorado GOP’s consensus candidate and that Bob Schaffer may not even come into the equation.  They also–I think foolishly–put the race at “no clear favorite.”  If McInnis runs a good campaign–unlike Beauprez, O’Donnell, Coors, etc.–he should win.  Looking at things objectively, McInnis is probably closer to Colorado’s ideological sweet spot than Macchiato Mark.  Colorado is somewhere right of center, the question is just how far.  My liberal friends argue that the sweet spot is moving quickly to the middle while I would say it’s still solidly center-right.  That’s the real arguement.

    But McInnis has positioned himself perfectly in this race.  He’s “pro-choice” but he has been a solid vote for life.  He voted against the gay marriage ban but he can be relied upon to vote against the gay lobby.  He has a record of environmental conservation but he is unquestionably pro-business.  The question is how he positions himself in the campaign–will he be like John McCain or Bill Owens/Wayne Allard?–and how well he campaigns. 

    I’m still supporting Bob Schaffer but I’m warming to Scooter. 

    1. McInnis was a freshman,sophomore, junior and senior legislator during the corruption of congress. He’s a holdover from the class of big government, gross spending, earmark loving republicans we just rolled in november.  McInnis will loose if he is the nominee because he’s a representation of what we all hate about our own party.

  6. The American public and the US Congress are getting their backs up about the Bush Regime’s determination to escalate the war in Iraq. A massive protest demonstration occurred in Washington DC yesterday, and Congress is expressing its disagreement with Bush’s decision to intensify the war in Iraq.

    This is all to the good. However, it misses the real issue – the Bush Regime’s looming attack on Iran.

    Rather than winding down one war, Bush is starting another. The entire world knows this and is discussing Bush’s planned attack on Iran in many forums. It is only Americans who haven’t caught on. A few senators have said that Bush must not attack Iran without the approval of Congress, and postings on the Internet demonstrate world wide awareness that Iran is in the Bush Regime’s cross hairs. But Congress and the Media – and the demonstration in Washington – are focused on Iraq.

    In Davos, Switzerland, the meeting of the World Economic Forum, a conference where economic globalism issues are discussed, opened January 24 with a discussion of Bush’s planned attack on Iran. The Secretary General of the League of Arab States and bankers and businessmen from such US allies as Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates all warned of the coming attack and its catastrophic consequences for the Middle East and the world.

    Writing for Global Research, General Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy on Geopolitical Affairs and former Joint Chief of Staff of the Russian Armies, forecasted an American nuclear attack on Iran by the end of April. General Ivashov presented the neoconservative reasoning that is the basis for the attack and concluded that the world’s protests cannot stop the US attack on Iran.

    There will be shock and indignation, General Ivashov concludes, but the US will get away with it. He writes:

    “Within weeks from now, we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc…. The probability of a US aggression against Iran is extremely high. It does remain unclear, though, whether the US Congress is going to authorize the war. It may take a provocation to eliminate this obstacle (an attack on Israel or the US targets including military bases). The scale of the provocation may be comparable to the 9/11 attack in NY. Then the Congress will certainly say ‘Yes’ to the US president.”

    The Bush Regime has made it clear that it is convinced that Bush already has the authority to attack Iran. The Regime argues that the authority is part of Bush’s commander-in-chief powers. Congress has authorized the war in Iraq, and Bush’s recent public statements have shifted the responsibility for the Iraqi insurgency from al-Qaeda to Iran. Iran, Bush has declared, is killing US troops in Iraq. Thus, Iran is covered under the authorization for the war in Iraq.

    Both Bush and Cheney have made it clear in public statements that they will ignore any congressional opposition to their war plans. For example, CBS News reported (Jan. 25) that Cheney said that a congressional resolution against escalating the war in Iraq “won’t stop us.” According to the Associated Press, Bush dismissed congressional disapproval with his statement, “I’m the decision-maker.”

    Everything is in place for an attack on Iran. Two aircraft carrier attack forces are deployed to the Persian Gulf, US attack aircraft have been moved to Turkey and other countries on Iran’s borders, Patriot anti-missile defense systems are being moved to the Middle East to protect oil facilities and US bases from retaliation from Iranian missiles, and growing reams of disinformation alleging Iran’s responsibility for the insurgency in Iraq are being fed to the gullible US media.

    General Ivashof and everyone in the Middle East and at the Davos globalization conference in Europe understands the Bush Regime’s agenda.

    Why cannot Americans understand?

    Why hasn’t Congress told Bush and Cheney that they will both be instantly impeached if they initiate a wider war?

    1. It’s that we just don’t care.

      And that Iran’s been asking for it. 

      And it would make for some kick-ass video.  Wall-to-wall precision-bomb videos!  Coming to a cable network near you!

            1. I like that “You’re just a chickenhawk” is the first line of argument against interdicting the Iranian nuclear program and support of terror operations from Hizb’allah to al Qaeda. 

                1. You mean like holding Holocaust-denial conferences, supporting unrest in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, ignoring the UN regarding nuclear build-ups, and generally saber-rattling in the form of, you know, quite literally, “asking for it.”

                  When I ship out next month, for the 4th time, I’ll try to remember I’m just a chickenhawk.  Your insight is astounding.

                  1. Who was the headliner of the holocaust denial conference? It certainly wasnt a former US congressman. Amadinejad (sp?) is now being criticized by the Ayatollah, his party lost in the last elections to the more moderate challenger, and there are protests that are not being followed with rperisals.

                    What about North Korea? They actually have nuclear weapons and have tested them. Our response? We want more six party talks and have just now implemented an embargo against luxury items like ipods. If anybody is asking for it is, or was, it’s North Korea.

                    1. We take out a few Iranian agents, send over a carrier group, and suddenly Ahmedinejad falls in line.  Go figure!

                      That’s why all this Chicken Little stuff is silly – the threat armed force is the only thing Iran will listen to right now.  Otherwise, any diplomacy would just be us capitulating.  Simply put, we don’t have anything they want, beyond not shooting at them.  Sometimes, that’s what it takes.

                      But I’ll believe the “reforms” as soon as the shaped charges and intelligence agents stop flowing into Iraq and the nuclear inspection teams start flowing freely within Iran.

                      Though it’s typical to hear complaints against not using diplomacy in the world and complaints against using diplomacy with North Korea from the same people, it’s rare that it happens so suddenly, almost in the same sentence.  Striking clarity.

                    2. We are trying to play hardball with Iran, yet North Korea slides along. We are using different methods of diplomacy, neither of which are working. My main point is that we are sabre rattling with Iran (no nuclear weapons), and trying to play softball with NK (has nuclear weapons). Yet, we clearly knew that NK was developing them. They told us so. Dont insult me.

                    1. surface your statement appeared to be somwhat obscure, but after analyzing it, it is meaningless.  We have had to listen to all of the Republican diatribe about the need for the war amd why we are going over there for years.  Only to find that most of the so called facts you allude to were lies, deceptions, manipulations and just so much bush-it

                    2. 1) Saddam wasn’t asking for it.  Well, not literally, like Mahmoud is these days.
                      2) It wasn’t BS – it was a decade of broken UN resolutions and state support of terrorism.
                      3) It’s not a mess.  Outside of a 30-mile ring of Baghdad, ain’t much going on there.  Hell, half of the provinces are essentially under Iraqi control.
                      4) Just because you choose to ignore the above facts and substitute your own reality doesn’t make the real reality a lie, deception, and/or manipulation.  It just means you’re even more stubborn than the President.

                    3. sure that all of the information coming out of Iraq is a part of my altered reality.  The mass killings, finding bodies on the street. Armed militias, civil war, insurgents. Kidnapping American soldiers.. etc.  If that is your idea of things go well, Lord help us.

                    4. What did you learn in your training about international law and what makes an order “illegal.”  I am geniunely curious.  We have civilian control of the military…and except in movies, we have never had the military acting independently.  You are mounting a justificiation here for going into Iran because “they are asking for it.” 

                    5. Read the indictments at Nuremburg.  I have.

                      We hanged Nazis for doing what our “leaders”, both civilian and military, have done.

                      How soon we forget.

                    6. PR, you are so right.  I need to start putting name and addresses on my posting so it is apparent to whom I am responding.  The helicopter pilot who is waiting to be deloyed, for the fourth time is the person I was querying.

                      Our military is in a rough position, now….not just because Iraq is getting more dangerous by the day…but they are being asked to fight in a dirty war while the country goes through a long delayed necessary debate about whether they should be fighting, at all.  Meantime, their buddies are getting killed and that is real. Their families are torn up with fear and waiting and these guys have to go and kill and be sitting ducks or flying ducks or ducks in trucks  in the intrium.

                        This guy in Florida has his war face on.  I should cut him some slack.  But, we all bear responsibility.  Nuremberg establishes for all time that individuals finally bear responsibility for their acts, even in the most horrific circumstances.

      1. There’s just too many of them left in the world. 

        Does anyone besides me see this dichotomy about how terrible it was for some thugs to murder 3,000 (not all) Americans, but it’s OK for us to do it when a uniform is involved?

        “Really, Jesus, it never occurred to me……”

    2. Much bigger than Watergate. Bush would take the country to war without the permission of Congress while the constitution expressly reserves that right for congress.

      And when the country wants us winding down Iraq, not getting even more bogged down.

      With that said, while I am pretty sure Bush is not that stupid – I’m not 100% sure. But that almost certainly would lead to a quick impeachment of both Bush and Cheney – as in days.

      I also hope there are enough senior people in the military who will come forward and point out that while the inital bombing will look cool, attacking Iran will add to our problems and manpower needs, not reduce them.

      It’s a sign of just how out to lunch this administration is that something like this is even credible…

      1. … a nuclear-armed Iran hitting Tel Aviv? 

        If that were to happen, there would be… you guessed it… cries of “impreachment” from the left, built around the question of “How could they let Iran get the bomb?”

          1. Are you really saying a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv wouldn’t have effects well outside of the Middle East, including on American interests outside of an “alliance” with Israel?

            1. doing Tel Aviv’s bidding. 

              Didn’t we hear something about a mushroom cloud in NY being a possibility before we “had to” invade Iraq. 

              Yokel, I had developed some respect for you, but now all I hear is another war monger, justifying his line of work. 

              I would love to learn that I’m wrong.

              1. So, a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv *wouldn’t* change things a bit?  Because, if you’ll read, that’s all I said.  And apparently suggesting that a nuclear Iran using their nukes might have “an effect on the landscape” means I’m a warmonger. 

                1. I’m quietly, seriously confident that somebody will take care of Iran’s little nuke problem.  I’d like to think President Bush would leave a few bunker-busters as his going-away present.  But after spending a lot of time in Israel I’ve learned one thing: the Israelis are tough, tough cookies.  They lived Jewish extermination and the Jewish State’s raison d’etre is to keep the Jewish people safe.  We all know they have contingency plans ready for a strike on Iran.  They’ve got a limp-wristed hippie at the Defense Ministry now but it looks like he’s going to be replaced by a Likudnik. 

                  As an unabashed fan and lover of Israel and America–I hope these two fine nations and everlasting allies collaborate to take out a terribly dangerous foe.

                2. What I hear you saying is that we have moral justification to fuck with Iran because we – and Israel – don’t like what they are doing.  I heard glee in a previous post about kicking their ass and bombing them.

          2. It’s not just about Israel.  It’s about us, Europe, and the march toward democracy of the entire Middle East.  First, Israel is an ally.  They promote our democratic interests in the MidEast and we help them out. 

            There is also a moral obligation.  If France was aiming nukes at the UK you better believe that the US would be every bit as involved as we are now to fight off the French.

            1. How many more of our sons and daughters will be sent to die over bullshit that’s someone’s idea of a threat?

              Talking points aren’t worth dying for.

              You’ll have to give me more.  Much more.  Oh–and this time, it better be right.

              1. I mean, hey, he won’t get us, right?  Our boys and girls won’t get slaughtered by “someone’s idea of a threat.”

                If he wants the Jews let him get the Jews.  As long as I’m here in my barc-o-lounger watching the Daily Show I don’t give a damn what happens.

        1. Turned out it wasn’t necessary.

          An atomic (not nuclear) bomb in Tel Aviv would cause massive loss of life. But it would be followed by an atomic attack from Israel that would eliminate Iran.

          Might they do it? Yes. But very very unlikely. India & Packistan were supposed to have a war with atomic weapons by now – hasn’t happened.

          In fact, using your logic, Iran should pre-emptively attack the US since we keep making noises about attacking them. Would you view an Iranian attack on the US as justified???

          1. Russia could be deterred by MAD.  The whole problem with Iran is that:

            1) They have a leader who doesn’t seem to care if he gets nuked back. 
            2) They arm and fund terrorists who don’t have a state that we can assure we will be mutually destroying.

            The Soviets were bad guys, but they were self-interested and relatively predictable.

            Bad analogy.

            1. At the time Russia was viewed at not caring if we hit them with nukes in the ’50s. And Stalin very well may not have been to worried about that.

              And the Russians funded everyone in the world that was against us in the cold war (remember Vietnam?).

              How about if we figure out some way to get out of Iraq before we get ourselves in another mess?

              And how on earth can you assume Bush, Cheney, & Co will be successful in Iran would they have done everything wrong in Iraq. Based on their inability to do anything right there we must assume Iran would be a bigger mess.

              And don’t forget, Iran is a Democracy. An imperfect one with a theocratic head, but Britian has the same thing with the Queen and you’re not proposing invading Britian (yet).

              So you want to attack a democracy that has not attacked us for possibly (I agree probably) getting nuclear weapons. Yet if I was Iran hearing how Bush wants to invade me – I’ld sure want nuclear weapons to insure that I was not invaded. It’s a logical response and does not mean they would ever be used.

              But bottom line – having a disaster in Iran too will not help at all in Iraq. And going to war without approval from Congress will tear this country apart.

              1. Technically, it’s a “Theocratic Republic” according to the CIA World Factbook.  Can’t be sure what they mean by that, as “theocratic republic” isn’t in the list of defined governments.

                It’s apparently okay when the Shah runs things for Allah and we can call it a “democracy,” but when the President goes to Christian church, it’s the end of the world.

                It would be a different war – likely a Clintonian bombing campaign.  Only with lots more and lots bigger bombs.  Or, even more likely, a SOF war like the one Iran is fighting against us (oh, right, you said they “have not attacked us.”  must be true then). 

                Speaking of Clintonian bombing campaigns, were you threatening us all with “tearing this country apart” during his various cruise-missile strikes, both approved or unapproved?  Or is that only bad when it’s a Republican doing it?

                1. Because the recent election and the mood in this country is to wind down in Iraq. Expanding the war would go directly against that.

                  The Democrats would have to move for impeachment and expidite it. That would have the right wing up in arms.

                  This country works on compromise. No one is thrilled but everyone can live with it. When there is no compromise, then it gets real ugly.

                  Attacking Iran would be a giant F.U. to the majority of the people in the country.

                  1. Related to airstrikes against nuclear sites in Iran? 

                    Answer: It’s not. 

                    Far as I can tell, it’s not the President who’s being exceedingly “uncompromising” these days.  Some folks might want to tear things apart, but the President wouldn’t fall among them, nor would most folks on the Right side of things.

                    Far as I can tell, most Americans would understand the difference, and do understand how bad a nuclear Iran would be.  You may disagree, to which I would reply that you ought to look at those who try to hide behind the “I support Afghanistan, but not Iraq” line of belief.  Why would bombing a few Iranian military sites be any different?

                    I hope the Left DOES try to tear the country apart if it happens.  It would bury the Democratic Party for decades.

                2. They do have an elected parliament.  The rule of law is the Sharia, however, the parliament is able to enact and pass legislation.  There is also a council of religious leaders who can override the law, although this has proved somewhat problematic in the past on both sides.  Just a matter of clarification.

              2. You lost some credibility with that one.  Come on.  Islamic Mullahs pick acceptable candidates for the ballot.  That’s not a democracy, it’s a theocratic oligarchy that puts on a pretty face for Western dupes.

                And I never said I wanted to attack Iran.  (Neither did the Bush administration).

      2. It wouldn’t be an invasion, it would be airstrikes.  Sadly, there are plenty of precedents from both parties that just bombing a country with whom we are not officially at war does not require Congress.  I’m not saying I think it will happen, but it’s really not all that unlikely either.

          1. The majority of the country is not against the war in the feathers-in-the-hair banging pots and pans style of Ted Kennedy deafeatism.  They don’t think we’re fighting to win or fighting effectively enough to win.  When we are actually engaging the enemy people support our efforts.  If you look at the crosstabs they over-poll Democrats and independents.

            And what do you expect from a public bombarded by a breathtakingly liberal media?  I just saw on 9news as story about the fight for Najaf.  They mentioned the downed chopper–killing two brave soliders–but “forgot” to mention that we took care of 250 terrorists!

            Also, listen, most people in America don’t care a whole lot about the war.  Maybe they should–probably they should–but they don’t.  When guy x is called up by CBS and asked his opinion because he probably has no idea what he’s talking about he’s going to default to the MSM anti-war position.  That’s why this political viability business is so silly.  The country has not gone anti-war, it’s gone “show us something worth cheering for.”  And I pray this troop reenforcement will do just that.

    1. The tragedy is that he’s a citizen-journalist without the fancy-pants credentials of an NBC or CNN.  But anyone who reads the guy knows that possibly the best coverage of the war comes from Yon.  He doesn’t sugarcoat events on the ground–it’s hard and trying–but he is always lets you know about things that give you real reason for optimism.

      I read that Iraq’s economic growth was about 30% the last couple of years.  You also read about Iraq’s government and party politics, you read Iraqi blogs, you read Michael Yon, and you realize that, holy crap!, this is a real, vibrant, functioning country!  And it wouldn’t be prudent to let it go to the wolves.  It’s in it’s infancy stages–make not mistake–but it’s our obligation to help nurse it to relative maturity.

      1. Ok, I’ve not replied to anything DDHGLQ for a couple of days but this was too good to resist.

        Michael Yon’s take on what we should do in Iraq? From his website – Get out – we’ve lost

        DDHGLQ’s take on Michael Yon – “anyone who reads the guy knows that possibly the best coverage of the war comes from Yon.”

        1. Here’s a solution…

          Instead of trolling the web for just about any and all anti-war venom you can find–and all within the comfort of your fancy Boulder home–try finding out the truth from folks on the ground.  Yokel is one such fine source and you can just sit and listen without having to push a button. 

          But if you’ve had your extra helping of granola maybe you can find some Iraqi bloggers, mil bloggers, and check out Iraqi TV, Iraqi radio (I recommend radio Sawa) and other such things.  That’s the problem…even when news like Yon’s smacks you in the face with it’s hope for Iraq you read it just like another namby-pampy “it can’t be done” piece of defeatism.

          I don’t see what’s so hard about this, I really don’t: We can’t leave.  Sorry.  We can’t.  I know you’d like to stab our troops and the Iraqis in the back–it’s the usual sort of stuff the lefties like to do.  But this time America is too wise, too smart, too good to do that again.

          We will win.  Without your help.  Thanks anyway.

        2. http://gallery.micha

          This guy in Afghanistan is mezmerised by, what is that, ah yes, IT’S A FREAKING SHOP DOOR!  We crap our pants when our automatic garage door doesn’t open from the standard 3.4 miles away and this awestruck enterpeneur is probably in wonderous joy at a roll-up shop door.

          Don’t you see the valor here?  Don’t you see it?  Don’t you see how with the help of Afghani, Iraqi, and Coalition forces we are bringing an eternally oppressed region out of the dark ages and into modernity and liberity?  Don’t you see how Iraqis, Afghanis, Lebanese and on and on it goes are such vibrant, decent, creative people who have so much to give to the world if only they were given a chance.  I know that sounds terribly “we are the world” to American ears. 

          That’s lovely, we say, but let them create and vibrate or whatever on their own time and energy.  We’ve got healthcare to fix.  We’ve got welfare to provide.  We can’t waste our ample dollars on you!

          Don’t get me wrong.  I don’t think America should be on a global mission to provide shop doors to the shop doorless from Bali to Bollivia.  But a democratic Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond is a whole helluva lot better for our security because its a whole helluva lot worse for Jihadist aims.  When the Islamists get the middle finger from their own people that’s a VERY good thing for us.  And, for Afghanis, a simple shop door is a middle finger to Al Qaeda, Zawahiri, and rest of the liberty-hating extremists that seek to tear down the very thing that inevitably lifts people up: freedom.

            1. You mean like the one who ignored Congress and the Constitution and made war against a bunch of Muslim Pirates because they were a threat? 

              A guy with a cool garage door is infinitely less likely to become a terrorist than one who doesn’t.  How do you think the Unabomber got so crazy living in all those shacks?  I’ve gotta say, that tends to make it our job, to a point. 

              1. Or do you mean the ones who conspicuously put the Electoral College into the Constitution, but left out universal health care and education and rather conspicuously denied the progressive income tax?

                You don’t want to get started on what the Founding Fathers would have wanted.

                1. They wrote a constitution for a small agrarian society. Their brilliance is they kept it loose enough that it works to this day.

                  But they did not give us a democracy, they gave us a republic. Where in most states you had to be white, male, and a property owner to vote.

                  They kept slavery.

                  Public education was provided by several states and grew to all shortly. They understood that public education was key to growing the economy.

                  Universal health care has become a problem as health costs have grown as part of individual’s expenses. When health care was a very small expense it was not needed.

                  Same for the income tax. For a small agrarian economy protected by large oceans, federal expenses were low. For a large industrialized country where the oceans are not much protection, federal expenses are significant.

                  It’s not 1776 anymore – get over it.

  7. The article you linked to did not say “get out, we’ve lost.”  It–I think wrongly–suggested that this is our last, best chance at victory.  Notice it was not written by Yon.  Michael is a frequent guest on conservative radio and provides great–if sober–insights into the war.

    It is inconceivable and not quite serious to suggest that we leave.  It’s simply not a serious option.  The mass genocide, the grave instability, the hit our reputation would take–all of it disasterous–makes this a war we have to win.  And make no mistake, it can be won.  It will take mettle, patience, and hard work.  I think America still has those qualities in her.

    Also notice how we’ve already started engaging the enemy in Najaf.  The ISF and Coalition troops prevented a massacre on a Najaf mosque and killed 250 bad guys in the process.  We are at war.  Now is not time to surrender. 

    Yon is a fine reporter who can be relied upon to give Americans the truth in Iraq.  If you have something showing he’s for cutting and running, by all means show it.  But don’t lie.  For God’s sake don’t lie.

    1. Lessee…..hmmmmm…… oh yeah!  We wiped out the stable government that was there! 

      Sweet Jesus, how do folks like you fail to see the cause and effect of what we have done?

      And BTW, troops in Iraq are the LAST source of objective information.  There are a lot of reasons, including the fact that every human being wants to believe that their job has relevance and is important.  Once a soldier realizes that his job is that of murdering civilians and part of a US policy that is immoral, he can’t fight.  So he takes what is psychologically the easy way out.

      On top of that, any one or several soldiers only see the toenail of the elephant.  They can’t even tell if the elephant is alive or what.

      1. Yeah, because someone who goes straight to the “They’re all over there murdering civilians” bull is a fantastic source on what’s really going on in the war.

        Your toenail analogy might work for a file clerk.  But a file clerk I ain’t.  Too bad this is all online and open-source.

  8. Copols has some Rambo types who believe that war, innocent slaughter, destruction of economies, brute strength, trillions of dollars being thrown at a problem that could have been solved with $500,000 is the correct way to solve problems.

    I had a dream, since shattered, that the new millennium would usher in a glimmer of sanity…a ray of hope, a new begining. There’s too much false glory and profits in war. Sadly, it comes at the expense of the poor; the less educated, the minority.

    “One has a stronger hand when there’s more people playing the same cards.” GW Bush

    Then lets make damned sure we take the cards away from the criminally insane. Stop the warmongering minority! Stop the senseless killing. Stop the politics of fear.

    Work for peace and economic justice.

    1. Your party is in the driver’s seat.  Tell them to stop funding the war and the troops will come home.  Peace will reign supreme and all will be right with the world.  I’m sure they want what you want, right? 

      1. It’s January 28, 2010.  Let’s look back on the last two years in America…

        In 2008 Barack Obama-Osama-Bing-Bang-O’Rama was elected president.  Coalition forces were about six months away from a complete and successful handover of duties to the ISF (Iraq Security Forces).  But, because 20,000 Americans banged some pots and pans on the mall Barack O’Rama decided to pull our troops out just a tiddy bit early.  Some bozo from Al Jazeera leaked out a report–found on page A-26 of the Washington Post–that we pulled out too early and the the Shiites basically wiped out the Sunnis and are currently working on the Kurds.  ABC News heard “nothing” of the sort.  It NEVER happened!

        Well, Iran’s got nukes–and a new proxy state.  But, hey, with the new funds were saving from the withdrawal we can now pay for free healthcare for all illegal immigrants.  Tancredo quit after receiving .01% of the Iowa Caucus vote in 2008.

        With the increased Democratic majority in Congress America has finally ended it’s apartheid against the “gay community” and now gays can marry.  Glory be to God. 

        Oh, and by the way, there is no Tel Aviv anymore.  Iran nuked them soon after Obama-rama took office.  CNN swears that this NEVER happened.  But since satellites show that there is a giant mushroom cloud of what was Israel NASA has concluded that CNN is full of bs.  President Obama is too busy raising taxes for reparations for Al Qaeda to care.

        But he does have a penchant for starting each of his press conferences with the Louis Armstrong classic, “It’s a Wonderful World.”

    1. 20 pages of ad hominem.  Great source.

      Anyway, we won’t evolve beyond war because it doesn’t work that way.  Sure, diplomacy is great, as are non-lethal and non-violent solutions, but diplomacy only works when two things aren’t in direct contradiction (Wahabi theocracy vs. Western liberalism comes to mind), and non-violent solutions only work in a just society that recognizes the inherent, “inalienable” rights of those being all non-violent (and only one of the societies named above does that). 

      All you can do is hope to be on the winning side. 

      Or live in Submission (how does that translate again?) by becoming a turncoat to end up on the other winning side.  There’s that.

      1. Diplomacy kept Sadaam contained for many, many years.  We have swapped maybe several thousand victims of Sadaam per year for tens of thousands with great suffering all around.  Iraq was essentially functional with water, electricity, health care, and education.

        And you call this war the best option?

        The war mongers always have a “reason” for war. 

    2. just some wisdom that came along with years of life and watching human behavior to see that Bush & Co are literally, fucking insane.

      Mike Royko, that down to earth columnist now dead, was writing once about that Dahmer cannibal.  He was unhappy with the long proceedings to determine his sanity.  His point was that sometimes we don’t need docs and experts to know that someone is nuts. 

      I don’t need to be Dr. Justin Frank to know that Bush is a very sick man.  He is a deeply wounded, unhealed, narcissic, sadistic, dry drunk with a newkalear arsenal.

      Sometime democracy fails. 

      1. “I don’t need to be Dr. Justin Frank to know that Bush is a very sick man.  He is a deeply wounded, unhealed, narcissic, sadistic, dry drunk with a newkalear arsenal.

        Sometimes democracy fails.”

        Sadly, our country is caught up in Bush’s psychology and can sink with him if we don’t choose a different course — very soon.  I want to know what to expect in the “next chapter” of his illness, before I have to live it.  Anyone?  Anyone? 

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

51 readers online now


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