President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(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%
June 01, 2007 03:24 PM UTC
49 Comments
Just got this e-mail this morning:
Steve, I recognize that you feel you lost our little debate and therefore, rather angrily insisted upon continuing, but some of us actually do have lives outside of USENET. When given the choice between chasing the little white ball around Cascata or Rio Secco and debating the absent-minded Perfesser and his rabid lap-dog Cuervo … well, there isn’t much of a choice. For me, ColoPols is strictly downtime.
Later, dudes. 🙂
Does anyone here believe you beat Steve in the debate? Do you even believe that yourself? And why on earth should anyone believe that’s a real email you’re quoting and not something you just made up?
Steve mopped up the floor with your sorry arguments. Let it go, man, it just wasn’t your time.
Maybe he emails himself and doesn’t realize it?
and has even conceded the only question that matters regarding global government. The loose American confederation became a country as a natural reaction to an immediate external threat (the British Empire); the partial loss of sovereignty was seen as a net benefit. We’ll never get to where Steve wants to go, as no modern country of consequence would ever give up their sovereignty (or their nukes) — for there is no pressing need.
As for his fusillade of angry posts, even Cuervo conceded that they spoke for themselves. The discussion was over — in this case, by mutual agreement — but he insisted upon continuing.
Not just you, all of you. Less tirade, more give and take.
There are times when someone just begs to be reacquainted with (or introduced to for the first time) the intersubjective reality “out there” that is less flattering to them than their bombastic self-delusions.
My first response to (or regarding) this guy was to admonish someone else for calling him to task for his highly foolish sounding grandiloquent posturing, saying that it was harmless, and that we are all are works in progress. The next thing I know, he’s accusing me of being an archetypical example of some unforgivable jewish defect for supposedly invoking an exceptional status in regards to the holocaust (when in reality, in the post to which he was responding, I had specifically invoked the *unexceptional* nature of holocausts, making a comparison to an offensive proposal for the treatment of Muslims in America).
After that died out on a couple of threads, I posted on another clean thread expressing my feelings (and analysis) concerning nationalism and globalism. He took the opportunity to pretend that he represented a non-existant consensus that my analysis was regarded with “scorn and derision.” After that died out on that thread (upon my challenging him to submit to the closest thing to an objective test of our respective arguments possible), he arbitrarily *opens* this new thread with a new attack on me!
Given this history, why would you deprive me the pleasure of continuing to reduce him publically to the wobbling glob of insipid jelly that he truly is, when he simply keeps insisting on drawing attention to the fact?
Most circumstances are the right circumstances for admonishing people in a debate, or a public forum, to be civil, and to listen to one another rather than to try to take each other down a peg. These circumstances are not such circumtances: There’s nothing at stake except the respective pride of the participants, and there’s a public good involved in puncturing the balloons that blowhards make of themselves, polluting the marketplace of ideas with the flatulance of self-promotion.
Or, more to the point, let me have my fun, and let others contribute to it (my -or our- fun) if they so please, just as a favor to me. Okay?
Frankly, I rolled over most of the arguements, especially when they packed against the right margin.
European Union formed to address their internecine warfare, one of the many indisputable empirical contradictions to your arguments that you just choose to ignore. Their are many different shared opportunities or shared dangers that motivate alliances and federations: Variety is the spice of life, and your contribution to the rack is pure alum. But I truly do appreciate the fact that, even when I am sucked down into a schoolyard level of petty bickering, you make me look soooooooo good by comparison!
By the way, “the loose american confederation” most certainly *did not* become a country, in the sense of a country united by a functioning constitution, in response to the external threat of the British Empire: That only got us as far as The Articles of Confederation, which *was* the *beginning* of loose confederation (before that, their only political bond was *via* Great Britain). The Constitution, like the various treaties of the European Union, formed in response to the costs of internal frictions, not external threats. In your poorly informed attempt to debunk my argument, you only succeeded in making it stronger.
My nomination for zinger of the year, if it’s not too early to put one in.
I challenged you to yield, along with me, to any jury of our peers that you chose, by any parameters that you chose: That’s the precise moment, after a plethora of posts on boht sides, lasting several days, when you suddenly decided the argument was over. I think we all noticed the convenient timing.
In a sudden inspiration of curiosity, I just took the liberty of reviewing your past 50 posts, spanning a period of 11 days. Most, appropriately, received no responses (as one poster said, few have the patience to bother doing so). Of those that did, only one person ever agreed with anything you said (Sir Robin, on one ocassion, who also admonished you on another ocassion for your flaming, misrepresentative, response to my post on nationalism v. globalism). On the other hand, the following people not only disagreed with you, but assertively expressed in their responses, in one way or another, that they consider you a complete and utter jerk (a few others, not listed here, merely politely disagreed with something you wrote):
thecoloradokid
One Queer Dude
Aristotle
DavidThi808
Cuervo71
Mr. Toodles
Car 31
All or most of those listed above chimed in that they think you were completely outclassed in our debate.
In that 11 day, 50-post period, other than Sir Robin, (unless I missed any other exception in my scan) no one ever expressed any support for anything you ever posted.
The following is the complete list of people who expressed support for your arguments in our debate, or for your contention to have “won”:
I can’t speak for anyone else, but it is certainly not my goal, in presenting you with these inconvenient impositions of the reality that exists outside your own, rather isolated, self-admiration, to persuade you to stop posting: I do indeed believe that all voices that want to chime in should do so. My goal, rather, is to try to convince you to stop being such a jackass when you do choose to post. You seem to be just about the only person on the blog who has any other assessment of the personality expressed by the tone and style of your contributions.
I guess I am truly disconnected in a couple ways …
I did not realize that posts on this blog were viewed as an actual debate where there is a winner and loser. I thought this was merely an annoymous exchange of ideas and opinions.
I usually just ignore the stuff that does not interest me or where there appears to be no prospects of dialog between the posters.
I do get tired of name calling and repetitious complaints that present no new ideas or solutions.
In this particular instance, however, a digression from those norms was called for.
My last post on the weekend thread was on Wednesday; your most recent bid to rewrite the outcome (to which I’m now responding), again jumping to another thread, appeared on Friday. After I was ready to let our initial bout following your antisemitic rant go, you responded to a post of mine on new a thread, in no way directed at you, by invoking the imaginary “derision and scorn” of some mysterious “we” that you have ever since remained unable to produce.
Each time I let it go, it is you who seems to “insist upon continuing,” by any and all means possible, desperate for the validation that only you have been willing to give yourself. Have you noticed that no one has yet given you that validation, and several have explicitly denied it to you? Take the hint.
In the week from Tuesday, 5/21 through Monday, 5/28, you posted 98 times, never less than 6 on any day, and over 20 on each of 3 of those days. Your new, “cool” attitude, “Dude,” began right after I suggested we ask any group of people you choose to referee, at which point you suddenly went silent for over 3 days, apparently for the first time since you began posting, only to reemerge to indulge again in your habit of inventing support for yourself, which no one bought.
I’ll make you a deal, because this really is way past getting old: Just give it up, and that will be the end of it. Post your opinions or analyses concerning political issues, and I’ll do the same. Respond to those opinions and analyses only, and I’ll do the same. If you want to continue to pretend to be a messiah, fine, knock yourself out: Just try to avoid flaming individuals and ethnicities in the future. Someone might take umbrage.
I was happy to see yesterday one of my diaries on Doug Lamborn appear in the “recommended” diary section. Does Coloradopols make the decision on which diaries are recommended? Please explain.
If you scroll down the page of a diary a couple of screens you’ll see, on the right hand side under the ads, a “Recommend” button. If someone clicks it, it’s “recommended.” You’ll also see a link to show who recommended it.
I did not know that!
You too, LB.
We get to cross another item off the gay agenda today! 🙂
New Hampshire (whose state motto appropriately is “Live Free or Die,” and is the most conservative New England state) has become the fourth state to legalize civil unions for same sex couples.
When you add that number to Masachusetts (which wouldn’t simply settle for “marriage-lite” and went for full equality in one big step), it brings the total number of states with legally recognized same sex relationships to five.
They’re flouting the will of Colorado voters! Won’t somebody think of the children???
kudos to NH!
if Ted Haggard’s marriage is considered “gay”.
I give it a couple of more years for Gayle see if Ted can squeeze some money out of his new found celebrity status, and when the cash and their sex lives dry up, it’s D-I-V-O-R-C-E for those two.
Clearly Give-’em-Hell-Harry wasn’t a Republican, the party of fear and divison.
But the republicans of that era were not the party of fear and division (at least from historical record).
The current dems in many way lack conviction. Far too many are willing to place future polling and/or their personal interests at the forefront, rather than putting the interest of their constituents first. Of course, Carter and Poppa Bush found out what happens when you do that.
OTH, the current batch of republicans are worse. They have no morals. They lack the ability to balance any budget save their own pocket book. And they still do not put our best interests first.
I had to pass this along. On David Schultheis’ website, he lists his top issues – among which you will find fighting Homosexual Activism. Really. He even has a FLOW CHART that illustrates how honmosexuals plan to take over society.
It’s a hoot and it’s even color-coded!! I can’t let Davey-boy take all the credit, though. He copied and pasted it from the Alliance Defense Fund – some nutwing group who curses the day Will and Grace made it on to prime time television. ( That would be the first sign of the Apocalypse according to this flowchart…no joke).
I love the arrows, the color coded levels of disaster, and the fact that the final end result is a black box of impending doom if “them gays get their way”. He may be a hateful little man but – damn!!! – is he organized.
http://www.daveschul…
But it really should a wheel with Tim Gill and a wad $$$ placed at the hub. The vast lavender wing conspiracy?
I noticed that this right-wing homophobic group which published the chart is out of Arizona. The first state to explicitly decline to outlaw same sex marriage by popular vote.
Maybe they’re spreading themselves too thin. Remember, bigotry begins at home!
Well, Betsy Markey seems to have launched her campaign website. Sorta:
http://www.betsymark…
Personally, I wouldn’t vote for any candidate that didn’t want to “Maecenas pellentesque lorem ut sem” immigrants. Also, she lists Clinton, Ritter, and Salazar as supporters… I wonder how they feel about that. It appears to be “revenge of the placeholder text” week here in Colorado…
whomever created this website and owns the name will try to sell it to her – or the opposition.
At first glance (other than the weird latin) it appears to be real. More in depth review marks it as a gag.
Well, the biography page (the only link that seems to work) appears to be fairly legit:
http://www.betsymark…
… although apparently, in the State Department, she “reached the GS14 level, the civilian equivalent of an Army Lieutenant Colonel or a Navel Commander.”
A whois on the domain isn’t very informative, either:
http://www.whois.net…
So this is either not a legitimate site, or the worst possible roll out of a candidate site.
My money is on the the first option. This is not a legitimate site.
http://www.networkso…
The nonsense text is standard filler for development sites. The “endorsement” section is only a little bit presumptuous.
I got my mom’s initial site up in 48 hours before her announcement. It did not have issues but everything else was there. And our case was unusual in the the candidate dropped out and the party picked her and so there was only 48 hours from deciding to run to announcement.
The site looks better now but with the advance warning they had they really should have had at least this, and preferably more, before the announcement.
Now comes the hard part. It’s amazing how hard it is to get the “final” of any issue statement with everyone weighing in. It’s a lot more time and effort than I ever imagined.
Good luck to them on all this.
It’s legit, all right:
http://www.betsymark…
is now a full-fledged campaign site (albeit missing an “issues” section, but with a much… humbler… endorsement list).
And she’s still the civilian equivalent of a Navel Commander.
Gotta admit, that was a pretty awful rollout.
Michael Yon – the best journalist in Iraq. Imagine what we could have done if the occupation had been competently handled from the start.
Hello
Has anyone seen Betsy Markey’s website it is up and running and it states that she is endorsed by Hillary Clinton, Ken Salazar, and Bill Ritter. This site is a joke. I guess this is the kind of campaign she will have.
http://www.markeyfor…
A Michigan man was arrested by police for accessing a coffee shop’s public Wi-Fi hotspot. He was charged with a felony and faced up to 5 years in jail, but he took an offer of “paying a $400 fine, doing 40 hours of community service and staying on probation for six months.”
The coffee shop owner said she was surprised by the arrest of 39-year-old Sam Peterson, who is a toolmaker, volunteer firefighter, and secretary of a bagpipe club. “He could have just come in the cafe, even if he didn’t have any money, I would let him get on it,” said the owner. Before the arrest, Peterson had no criminal record.
In the article about the incident, Sparta police chief Andrew Milanowski and Kent County assistant prosecuting attorney Lynn Hopkins come off as brittle, badly-programmed automatons.
“I was sitting there reading my e-mail and he came up and stuck his head inside my window and asked me who I was spying on,” Peterson told FOXNews.com.
Someone from a nearby barbershop had called cops after seeing Peterson’s car pull up every day and sit in front of the coffee shop without anybody getting out.
“I just curiously asked him, ‘Where are you getting the Internet connection?’, you know,” Sparta Police Chief Andrew Milanowski said. “And he said, ‘From the cafГ©.'”
Milanowski ruled out Peterson as a possible stalker of the attractive local hairdresser, but still felt that a law might have been broken.
“We came back and we looked up the laws and we figured if we found one and thought, ‘Well, let’s run it by the prosecutor’s office and see what they want to do,'” Milanowski said.
A few weeks later Peterson said he received a letter from the Kent County prosecutor’s office saying that he faced a felony charge of fraudulent access to computer networks and that a request had been made for an arrest warrant.
h/t boingboing.com
Almost half of American soldiers in Iraq think torture should be allowed to save the life of another soldier, and 39 percent of Marines and 36 percent of Army soldiers think it should be allowed merely to gather information on insurgents. Barely a third of Marines think civilians should be treated with dignity. Fully 10 percent of soldiers who have served in Iraq, or well over 100,000, report mistreating civilians by unnecessarily destroying their property, abusing or torturing them. That’s your military, America. This isn’t according to some liberal media outlet extrapolating numbers from some third-class source. No. This is by the Pentagon’s own accounting. And the mass media buried it or left it unreported.
to the effects of the “Looking out for Number One” philosophy that started in the 1980’s. Welcome to the effects of morals taught by the media and not by parents or religious bodies. Behavior based on “the Golden Rule” never happens spontaneously; it must be taught.
Although we can never know, imagine those same questions posed to GI Joe in WWII would have come out.
Do you think the results would have been different if they’d polled WWII combat troops? I doubt it, but it would be interesting to know.
but as we both said, we’ll never know.
It is obvious that our soldiers never received training about Nuremburg, “just war”, or other ethical matters that tell them they have responsibility to behave in manners that above that of our enemies.
Although my (bleeding)heart goes out to the men and women in Iraq and their families, they are part of the problem. They followed orders, just like the good German soldiers. For that matter, just like good soldiers throughout history. They are choosing to participate in this most immoral of all American wars.
In WWII, even once the troops were in Germany, there was no insurgency. In Iraq any civilian they face may be the enemy. And that makes it a very different situation.
With that said, I think our trrops have to treat civilians properly, both because otherwise we are no better than the insurgents and because it is the only way we can win.
But it’s an awful situation for the troops on the ground. They basically have to turn the other cheek to someone who may kill them or their buddies tomorrow.