President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 28, 2007 03:26 PM UTC

Friday Open Thread

  • 79 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Things aren’t as pretty
on the inside

–Nine Inch Nails

Comments

79 thoughts on “Friday Open Thread

  1. I think the kid has guts and is right on target.  The scene of the student in Florida being tazered for no apparent reason was chilling…and could have a chilling, intimating impact on the exercise of free speech on campuses……so McSwane did two things…He used the “tazer this” as a challenge and then he wrote and published the most outrageous editorial he could to meet that challenge….

    history lesson:  it was 45 years ago on homecoming weekend at CU, that the editor of the then student newspaper, the Colorado Daily, was fired. His sin?
    He had a front page editorial calling for the abolishment of intercollegiate football….something about costing too much; not academic; no one knew at the time about the drug store slush funds..and all the crap which has plagued CU…but the president of CU..old liberal democratic hero.Quigg Newton, fired me.  I remember some ineffective protests…and I think those involved, finally graduated and joined the peace corps….a feeble form of the french foreign legion.

    Two years later, Mario Salvio started the Free Speech Movement at Berekley and that has made all the difference.  Students protested, marched against the war, the draft and the fact that they could not vote….they got the vote, ended the draft…finally the war and we had thirty years of peace because the military could not figure out how to wage war without conscripted bodies…
    until along came the axis of evil….cheney, rumsfeld and bush….who figured out how to privatize every military function of war except dying…..and we got Iraq….

    Now, the country is divided between those who think that Iran is the new Nazi Germany and those who think that we are…..that the rationale for preemptive strikes….ie., national security and protection of vital resources….is exactly the rationale that Hitler and Tojo used…….The debate has to go forward, without fear of being tazed or fired or targeted….If we can’t hold our government accountable, then, at long last, the Nazi win.

        1. Has the United States exterminated 6 million Jews and 3 million other people in the name of ethnic purity?

          I don’t remember reading that in any history books, but maybe dwyer is reading a different history book. 

          1. Only they’re not Jews.  They’re all the oppressed peoples of the world and poor of this country who suffer so greatly for the wealth our corporations.  Duh. 

            Always remember – the corporations get all corporation-y, and then you know who to blame for everydamnthing.

          2. The U.S. is not Nazi Germany.

            Now Foghorn, riddle me this – has Iran  exterminated 6 million Jews and 3 million other people in the name of ethnic purity?

            The Nazi comparison’s do not fit any current nation. Arguing that any nation or leader is equivalent to the Nazi’s is insulting to the millions killed by actual Nazi’s and those who fought and died fighting in World War II.

                1. For suggesting that there might be something in this world worse than the US?  That in itself, aside from being an asinine assertion, is a form of passive aggressive “thought police.”  Maybe the shirt’s on you.

              1. and was flying around with the TX Nat. Guard, protecting college-deffered frat boys at A&M, that it matters if hadn’t yet driven a few companies into the ground before bring his magic touch to the nation?

                Yes, it matters.

            1. In 1939, Nazi Germany began preemptive strikes on other countries….Poland, Czechoslovia, Austria, Beligium, the Nederlands, FRANCE…it invaded and occupied those countries.  Its rationale was that its national security demanded that it control all of the countries on its borders and that its people needed “living space.” Japan began its imperialistic expansion in the Far East in the thirties.  Japan had no natural resources to support industrialization so it invaded other countries to secure rubber, oil and coal.

              International law holds that preemptive strikes against another country can only be justified when that country poses an emminent threat to the country making the preemptive strike.  That is generally meant that if another country is amassing tanks along your border and is posed to invade, you can do a preemptive strike, if there is no other way to defend yourself.
              No such threat existed for Germany, for Japan, or in the case of Iraq, for the United States. 

              This is the reason which so much was made of the argument that Iraq had WMD. It was the only legal reason to invade.  I have been against the war in Iraq from the beginning because I did not think that the threat it might have presented was great enough to justify a preemptive strike.  This is the first time in the history of our country which we have done a preemptive strike.

              Retired general, Wesley Clark, the hero of the NATO effort in Bosnia, et. al., called the Iraq invasion “an imperialistic impulse.”  I think he is dead right.

              Soldiers, sailors and marines study what is a just war and what is not a just war. Soldiers, sailors and marines are trained what is an illegal order and trained not to follow it.  This is all a consequence of WWII and the Nuremberg trials, which determined that “following orders” was not a defense against war crimes.

              The German civilians were rightly condemmed for not speaking up when their country invaded other countries and when the Jews were destroyed.  The latter is not what I am talking about.  I am talking about aggressive nations who break international law and invade and destroy other countries with the support of their own citizens.  That is what Hitler and Tojo did FIRST.

              I am concerned that we are like Nazi Germany and Imperialistic Japan because we engaged in a preemptive strike, an invasion and now an occupation of a country which did not present an immediate threat. If we are to preserve our democracy, we must be free to hold our current government accountable.
              If students are “tazed” because the campus police do not like their manner of speaking out, we are in big trouble.  That was a chilling intimination of free speech and can not go unanswered.  That kid in Fort Collins stood up and answered. Brave bastard.

              Now, the real sad sack (to use a term from the army) is John Kerry. It was his speech, his forum and he should have controlled the participants and if he didn’t like what was happening, he is the one who should have decided how to handled the one student who was grandstanding. He did not.

              I feel sorry for Kerry, but the real fact of the matter is that the man lost his balls, literally and figuritively, to prostate cancer surgery.  He is loaded up on god knows what hormones…to prevent a reoccurance of the cancer.  He has a delayed or no reaction to almost all incidents.  He has just faded away.  And like he allowed the swift boats to smear him, it has allowed an assault on the First Amendment to go unanswered.

              Now, do you understand?

    1. There are some who post on this site who are obvious sympathizers with the corporate/military complex and who have no compunction agaist the killing of innocent civilians for empire or strategic resources..or for profit.

      The posts following yours are about whether Iran has the capability to kill six million people, and the answer is no…..and they never will have. The U.S., on the other hand, does have that capability, and IMHO are dangerously sloppy with it. Witness the first flight in 45 years of nuclear bombs across America just a few weeks ago. That’s a fact, not hyperbole.

      The purpose of your post was to ask the question whether the citizens of a free country have the right to protest without fear of being tasered or shot by the police. I would hope that all posters here agree that that right is inviolate.

      1. That my right to call such pap silly and, indeed, dangerous is also inviolate.

        We have that ability, yes.  But it hasn’t happened.  Why do you think that is?

        Iran may or may not have that ability, but A-jad’s certainly on record as not all that opposed to trying.  How does he get a pass on wanting to if we don’t even get a pass on *not* wanting to?

        1. HAVE been tasered, thrown out of publicly funded political gatherings for wearing the wrong T-shirt….and students have been shot to death in this country for protesting peacfully. Silly pap? That has happened. We have used our nukes and this government is funding the development of new generations of nukes. That IS happening. Silly pap?

          I don’t understand your last question.

          1. So let me spell this out:
            A-jad’s on record as wanting the extermination of Israel.  That’s over 7 million people.  He’s on record as not having any homosexuals in his country.  God only knows how many that adds up to.  But do you have a problem with him?  Obviously not as big of one as with people who taser gasbag punks or who think that maybe 50-year-old dangerous weapons ought to be replaced and improved every now and then.  Why is that? 

            I think 7+ million folks in the crosshairs, and a little man who isn’t shy about his intentions is a *little* bigger deal than a free and open society that hasn’t used nuclear weapons in 60 years despite having lots of them maybe dealing with punkass gasbags a little roughly.

            I have messed up priorities like that.

            1. You have messed up priorities. Your priorities are based on the pap fed you to keep you in fear of the “A-jad’s” of the world. And your strategy for dealing with them is lock step with the fear mongers and war mongers. There aren’t 7+ million people in the crosshairs (let’s not forget there are over 1.4M arabs out of the 7M figure you mention in Israel). That statement is factually incorrect. My understanding of history is that the Israeili’s are much better than the U.S. in handling their adversaries. Much better!

              You overestimate President-elect Ahmadinejad because you too easily buy into the boogey-man in Iran that the MSM projects. You can get an education here:
              http://www.rferl.org

              Your “punkass gasbags” comments reflects your respect for American citizens freely expressing their opinions in public forums.

              1. And your “fear monger” comments reflect your respect for American citizens freely expressing their opinions in public forums, as well. 

                Only I’m not stealing anyone else’s time in my pointless tirades.

                Also, I didn’t know that Radio Free Europe was giving out information on A-jad’s Top Secret “Religion Bomb,” which would *only* nuke the Jews in Israel, leaving the Muslim Arabs untouched.  I thought that was still on double-secret-fear-monger status.

            2. that say he said what you say he said,
              as far as wanting to wipe Israel off the map and push all Jews into the sea.

              If you go to the SITES institute or MEMRI on the Internet, you might find him being quoted as saying that.
              But please consider the source. 

              Juan Cole is fluent in Arabic and Farsi (and Pashto, I think.) He read the transcripts, and he says that A-jad did not say exactly that. 

              Maybe it’s a subtle difference, but I think what he really said was that
                …..he looks forward to a day when there is no state of Israel (he doesn’t actually use that proper name) on the map. 

              I believe that there are other legit interpretations other than that he means he wants to kill 7 Million people. 

              .

              It would be hard to make a case that he wants to kill all Jews.

              Did you know that the 20,000 Persian Jews in Tehran actually have some representation in the national parliament ? 

              Did you know that there was a significant Jewish population in Baghdad,
              over 50,000 less than 20 years ago,
              going back continuously more than 1500 years,
              going back to the time before the Prophet,
              until the US started meddling, and the situation got too dangerous ?  There are almost none left today.
              /

          1. What if the “majority” wanted to reinstitute salvery?

            And using your logic, the majority of Americans want a ban on gay marriage, does that mean that Congress should ban

            The fact is, rule my the poll is akin to mob rule.  That is why the Founders gave us a republic.

            “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” – Madison in Federalist #10

            1. The second line was a joke Foggy.  I said nothing about “leadership.”  I didnt have to employ “my logic” for the purposes of responding to you.  I was merely making the point that by using your logic (if you care to use the term), you just classified the majority of Americans as “liberals.”

              And “what if” the majority wanted to make slavery legal? Oh that’s right, you’d have to recind the 13th Amendment.  Damn…  That would take a whole lame democratic process that would fail.  Our beloved Federalism wins again…

              And if Congress wants to ban gay marriage, let them.  But wait…damn…we didnt elect a Republican congress.  The majority elected a Dem congress…  Better luck next time.

              Finally, if rule by poll is mob rule, this crazy first-past-the-post electoral system we have has got to go.  Yeah…that’ll happen…

              1. You make the assertation that the majority of Americans are liberal, not me.  And by the way, the majority of Americans did not agree with Roe v. Wade when it was decided by the Supreme Court in 1973. 

                If the majority wanted it bad enough, they could repeal the 13th amendment, couldn’t they?  Yes, the majority could, but it wouldn’t make it right. 

                And since you seem to think that what the majority wants, they should get, it doesn’t matter who controls Congress, shouldn’t the Democrats listen to the will of the people?  Shouldn’t they listen to the majority who want a gay marriage ban?

                Unfortunately, I fear that our system of government is headed for the scrap heap because everyone wants power more than they care about doing what is constitutional. 

                    1. Only two recent administrations have gone out of their way to upset the balance of power between the three branches of government and pushed for more power to the executive branch.  Nixon and Bush II.  Though Gorge W. makes Tricky Dick look like an amateur in that regard and he has done more to assault the Constitution.

        1. Then support effective sex education (meaning no abstinence BS – a proven failure and yes I’ll provide a link when I get home) and easy access to contraception. No conception = no abortion.

                1. It kind of reminds me of Reagan when he was responding to a reporter’s claim that teenage pregnancies went up by X percent during his administration. Know what he said:

                  “I never felt so virile in my life”. 

                  Lighten up Foggy – it’s Friday.

        2. many liberals who oppose abortions and I am sure that there are conservatives who are pro choice.  The issue is not that of abortion, but rather preventing pregancies.  That is were the real debate needs to happen.  Abortions were going on before they were legal and will go on if and when Roe v. Wade gets overturned.

      2. Here’s my problem with the Ft. Collins editorial:

        It was just dumb.  That’s all.  Profanity doesn’t offend me, and they can be as editorially liberal as they wish.  It shouldn’t have been censored or anything.

        It was just stupid.  It made no point – the kid in FL was handled appropriately by the police at a John Kerry speech, and I thought it had little or nothing to do with Bush.  It was like someone saying “Van Halen sucks!”

        I’d much prefer to see someone like you make a point with reason and rationale, rather than a moronic graffiti tag F bomb.  At least it would have made me think.

        What do you think?

    2. “The debate has to go forward, without fear of being tazed…”

      The college kid should have been told to shut up and ASK A QUESTION ALREADY, or else sit down and let someone else have a chance. He was being an obnoxious jerk.

      Of course, his being tazed went too far. He shoulda just been hustled out of the hall. But his “Don’t taze me, dude!” screech was just another attempt to gain publicity.

      Same with the editorial: The editor writes “F*CK BUSH” in gigantic letters on a headline. (Without the asterisk.) If he had kept in the asterisk there wouldn’t have been this kind of tempest.

      Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush are incompetents and no friends of liberty – but all this talk about them being “Nazis” is so much overblown hooey that actually hurts the cause – just like calling Petraeus a traitor. (Or at least writing an ad that’s so clumsily phrased that it allows the right-wing shills to CLAIM that’s what you’re doing.)

      1. to the shrill right-wing trolls who desperately want to deflect the discussion away from the dismal failures of this administration.  The ‘crime’ is that he said FUCK BUSH… asterisk or no, its something they can point to in hopes that Americans will be distracted from the travesty that is our ‘leadership’ in DC. 

        The Petraeus ad is the same thing–a manufactured distraction.  If the Dems had any guts and did anything based on principal instead of what right-pollsters and pundits say they should do, then they could have used the opportunity to be the opposition party (to the administration) that they were actually elected to be. 

        Instead  all the Dem leadership and Salazars of the world care about is triangulation and calculation and figuring out where they imagine they should be in some mythical future to win a mythical position (that they will always be unable to achieve because they have no principal or spine). 

        Riddle me this–how does failing to pass (again) some watered-downed weakened bill on Iraq advance the Dems cause?  It makes them look like spineless wienies who have neither the skill nor political acumen to win anything of merit.

  2. Just so’s you know, I was checking out General Petraeous, he has never been in combat, yet he has been awarded a Bronze Star with a “V” device.  The “V” device can only be awarded for instances of courage under fire, otherwise it is awarded without the “V”.  He was however shot by his own man in a live fire exercise at Ft. Campbell and operated on by Dr. Bill Frist in Tennessee.

    The relevance here is regarding “Stolen Valor” and character implications.  Much ado was made regarding Kerry’s decorations and I am not sure how the “Stolen Valor Act of 2005” applies to active duty.  The most common decoration for valor in the Army is the Army commendation medal with “V” device, followed by the Bronze Star with “V”.  Common definitely inferring the enlisted grades, the Bronze W/V practically equaling the valor of officers with the Silver Star.  It is not unusal for an executive officer to write up his CO.  I admit a certain prejudice against general officers and have directly inquired of General Wesley Clark regarding his Silver Star. It was an embarassing momnent for both of us.

    1. In the march to Baghdad, some feyadeen fired at the convoy he was in.
      Seems he was not in danger and did not engage or return fire.
      But since someone in the convoy DID engage, everyone was deemed to have earned the new combat badge for non-Infantrymen.

      Generals are NOT eligible to receive the CIB, but there is no such restriction on the new badge. 

      And since he was the top ranking person there, he gave some directions like
      “lets get out of here.  Have some folks stay behind and mop that up.” 

      And for that, he got his V device. 

      CNO Jerry Boorda was more deserving of the V-device,
      and committed suicide rather than face the shame of wearing an award he maybe didn’t deserve, maybe did.

      how times change.
      /

      1. The liberal sites are all looking at the available history which says that Petraeus got the Valor medal in the battle for Faluja, and the only recorded instance where he came close to combat on that operation was a distant mortar shot – but apparently the official Army story says he led a counter-attack against some small-arms fire.  This is the conflict surrounding his Bronze with Valor; there were two other generals at the same location at the same time with him, neither of whom received the medal.

        I’d love to know the truth.

  3. Don Cordova beat Dorothy Butcher in the vacancy committee vote for the county commissioner seat in Pueblo being vacated by Loretta Kennedy.

    http://www.chieftain

    Not sure what this means in the long run for Sal Pace.

    Butcher will not resign so Sal will have to look for a job, since he has resigned from Salazar’s office (Kennedy in this musical chairs is taking his place).

    Butcher has a quote in the Chieftain article that appears to me ambiguous:

    “I think I got a clear message, that the Democrats expected me to return to the Legislature,” Butcher said. “I want to thank you for your support and I will be back here in 2008.”

    Does this mean she intends to run a primary against Cordova or does the ‘back here’ mean the legislature in 2008?

    I have noted many times on this blog that I had heard that Dorothy did not have the vacancy committee votes and indeed she didn’t.

  4. You hear that? That’s the sound of the voters slamming the door on the repulsive republican rhetoric of fear and smear.

    The honeymoon continues for Gov. Bill Ritter, whose favorability rating is hovering close to 70 percent, according to two recent polls.

    but of course, the one trick pony Dick Wadhams doesn’t care what voters think, but rather wants to tell them what to fear

    Colorado Republican Party chairman Dick Wadhams said Coloradans, who tend to give new governors the benefit of the doubt, are just waking up to how they will be affected by the property tax freeze that the legislature passed last session. That and the other tax hikes that may be pondered add up to “a potential time bomb for Gov. Ritter and the Democratic legislature,” Wadhams said.

    and good on Evan Dreyer for pointing out the obvious, which seems to be elluding the republicans (common sense boys, common sense).

    Ritter’s spokesman said the governor has earned his high approval ratings by taking on renewable energy, transportation, health care and education. “I think the kind of partisan attacks that have come from a few state house Republicans don’t resonate, because the issues that people care about are the issues that Gov. Ritter is addressing,” Evan Dreyer said.

    http://www.rockymoun

      1. Bercause she will be raising other people’s taxes to pay for it. 

        Why should people who have no children be foreced to give money to me because I have a child?

        Instead of relying on government, maybe parents should plan for their child’s future. 

        Parents taking responsibility for their children.  now there is a good idea. 

            1. the most important thing some of us, many of us will do in our entire lives, is be a parent. 

              Nothing does more to make this country stronger, when done right. 

                1. Yes, the military *should* be doing it; in fact, the Marines always *have* done that.  Unfortunately, they’re all tied up right now in a little fiasco called the Iraq War, and Bush doesn’t want to / can’t recruit more troops to do it right.

                  1. As for recruiting:

                    Sep 11 2007
                    The Department of Defense has announced its recruiting statistics by the active and reserve components for the month of August.

                    Active duty recruiting. All four of the DOD services exceeded their recruiting goals in August:

                    Army: Recruited 10,126 out of a goal of 9,600 (106 percent)
                    Navy: Recruited 4,194 out of a goal of 4,194 (100 percent)
                    Marine Corps: Recruiting 4,700 out of a goal of 4,472 (105 percent)
                    Air Force: Recruiting 3,128 out of a goal of 3,128 (100 percent)

                    07 Recruiting Statistics

                    Componant Accessions Goal Percent
                    Army 71,987 70,500 102
                    Navy 33,543 33,468 100
                    Marine Corps 31,359 28,714 109
                    Air Force 25,417 25,417 100

            1. Sounds like national healthcare to me.

              We all pay for things we do not use or even support.  I would guess you are not against healthcare for children, just against the government providing it.

              Look the government is not well equipped to do many things, but healthcare is one area where there is plenty of evidence of market failure.  No country in the world looks at the US healthcare system asnd says “Gee that’s what I want”.

              Even Sarkozy who wants to deregulate the broader French economy(I agree with him)isn’t talking about changing national healthcare.  Conservative icon Margret thatcher made no movement to change the NHS.

              The evidence is in national healthcare is cheaper and delivers better outcomes.  We need national healthcare for the same reason we moved to a national professional military:  some things the government just does better.

              1. And it didn’t sound like it to James Madison either.  He warned of people misinterpreting this specific clause and he said “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”  And Madison also said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”  And finally he said, “With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”  Seems to me that Madison would know. 

                As for the failures in the healthcare industry, I think most of it has to do with government interference.  First, there were wage controls during WWII which caused employers to offer benefits.  Then the government started to give tax breaks for people who got insurance through work.  Combine that with the fact you can not buy out of state insurance, number of regulations placed by the federal government on insurance companies and the number of mandates placed on insurance policies by states, all of which drive up costs, and you have a messed up system.  Compare that to Laser eye surgery, where the number of regulations is very small and many insurance companies do not cover the procedure.  Competition has led to incredible advances; prices have fallen with some companies even offering financing.  The free market system works, no government needed. 

                And let’s look at the other systems.  Here is what a woman in Britain had to do:

                http://www.thesun.co

                But she is in luck because by 2008 patients will only have to wait a maximum of 18 weeks for care:

                http://www.oxfordrad

                And you are right, I am not against healthcare for kids, I think that the private sector can provide it without the government.  Look at the Shriners, the provide thousands of kids with free healthcare on basis with no government intervention needed. 

                1. 1. lets start with debunking the critisim of other systems.

                  every system has anecdotal failures.  For every one in the UK I can show you 10 here.  Anecdotes are not the proper measure.  By any statistical measure US healthcare is amongst the poorest on a dollar for dollar basis.  We spend more than any country and get outcomes worse than anyone in the developed world.  Outcomes as I define them are longevity and infant mortality.  20% of the US has great healthcare, the other 80% either has no healthcare or terrible healthcare. 

                  2.  I agree with you on wage and price controls–terrible idea with lots of problems.

                  but onto the meat

                  3. Madison and the roll of government

                  I think its important to remember that when the founding fathers were talking about government’s roll they wanted to vest soveriegnty in the individual.  They were opposed to institutions that diminished the soveriegnty of individuals.  This is a theory that I agree with, but…

                  without making a detour into federalism, the most significant thing that the founding fathers didn’t anticipate was the rise of the corporation.  Corporations are individuals for most legal purposes and this has led to a situation that increasing power is vested in corporate interests against the interests of actual humans.

                  Let me first be clear–I am not anti-business–I worked in finance for many years and believe corporations are critical for capital formation and montization of ideas.  However, enlightment ideas of individual soveriegnty (upon which our founding documents were based)were written against a backdrop of church and aristocratic authority–not against the backdrop of corporate entities.

                  Corporations diminish the soveriengty of the individual, and healthcare because of its nature, is not an area where you can escape the tyranny of the insurance company.  Anyone who says they oppose national healthcare because they want to protect free choice in healthcare decisions has never been in an HMO, PPO or had a serious illness.

                  The government is one of the few couterbalances to corporate power. Imperfect: yes. Ineffiecient: by design. but at least I have a vote.

                  With corporations you do not have a vote.  Before you say there is voting let me be clear–you have no rights if you do not buy shares and even if you do own shares, practically the only votes you make are acceptance of the BOD and merger offers.

                  Adam Smith who published “The Wealth of Nations”  in 1776 (I think)warned against the rise of factions, which in his description sound a lot like corporations.

                  This is rambling and too long so I will cut it short.

    1. is that money was not for health insurance but additional gravy for “buying a home or future college fees”.

      I’m sure glad we have all this excess money laying around for all of these pet projects.
      is this going to be on TOP of her
      Clinton 2.0 plan to drain the working man?

       

  5. Udall to introduce ‘Rush’ resolution on Monday. On Monday, Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) will introduce a resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh’s comments that troops who support withdrawal from Iraq are “phony soldiers.” In a dear colleague letter, Udall says the resolution will honor “all Americans serving in the Armed Forces” while “condemning” Limbaugh’s “unwarranted attack.” 

    h/t ThinkProgress

    1. Limbaugh was referring to a specific “soldier” who was kicked out of the army during boot camp and then prosecuted for crimes unrelated to his statements.  This “soldier” had publicly stated that he had gone to war in Iraq and his unit had hung the bodies of innocent civilians they killed from the rafters of mosques.  In fact, he never served in the army except for his short stint in boot camp and never went to Iraq.  Limbaugh was referring to him and several other soldiers with similar fraudulent stories by name as “phony soldiers”.  This was a specific attack on people fraudulently claiming to have been in the military or to war who bash the military.

      Next time, check your source.  But dont worry, Clinton and Kerry didnt either and they have egg on their face also.

      FYI, Limbaugh posted the actual call to his website so you can verify…

        1. and it was clear that he was talking about several specific “phony soldiers”.  This transcript is not complete.  Next time, dont trust a liberal news source, check for yourself…

            1. http://www.rushlimba

              Rush put this up today.  It makes perfect sense in context, but it’s pretty funny that libs take Media Matters word rather than actually listening to the show.

              This is a classic case of a media source taking a small sound bite completely out of context and trying to change the meaning accordingly. 

              1. A small soundbite? Media Matters has the entire conversation that he had with both Mikes. Rush starts the conversation halfway through the conversation with the second Mike. I read on to see rush using small soundbites to villify democrats. He dismisses out of hand the editorial written by serving (two now dead) soldiers. He continues the ridiculous swift boat crap. In fact, all I read is a bunch of soundbites taken out of context with an attempt made to change the meaning

                Maybe it is me, but I dont see how this makes perfect sense in context. And, actually, if you read the transcript, the reason why “libs” choose not to listen to his show is should be evident. Also, read the conversation between rush and the first mike. Apparently, being a republican and military gets you a response of yeah, yeah, yeah. On the contrary, agreeing with rush and serving is laudable.

  6. I want to make sure this is credited and sourced:

    John Dunne
    Meditation XVII

    “All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated…As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness….No man is an island, entire of itself…any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

53 readers online now

Newsletter

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