U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) David Seligman

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) J. Danielson

(R) Sheri Davis
50%

40%

30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Trisha Calvarese

(D) Eileen Laubacher

90%

20%

20%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Shannon Bird

45%↓

40%

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
March 27, 2008 03:46 PM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • 101 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Corruption is worse than prostitution. The latter might endanger the morals of an individual, the former invariably endangers the morals of the entire country.”

–Karl Kraus

Tweet
Share

Comments

101 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread”

  1. …for being the first Front Range county to offer health insurance benefits for county employees and their same sex partners!

      It’s all the more impressive because Larimer County is the home of Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer!

  2. on KILO FM. I also found a web site reporting the same statistics.

    It is being reported that on average, we taxpayers work 5.3 months of each year, soley to pay TAXES.

    That is 44% of our income to pay TAXES.

    How can anyone, I mean anyone say we do not pay enough tax? Unless you are a die hard radical socialist wanting complete Socialism and wealth distribution that is.

    This is freakin nuts.

    Now go ahead and tell me that we have to pay for all the benefits we receive as a civilized nation. OK, but isn’t damn near 50% of our total income a little bit more than enough? If anyone argues with this, what is enough? 60%? 70%? 80%?

    Is there nobody watching what these people are spending it on?

    What do you suppose the original settlers would have said if they were told back in the early 1700’s that they were going to have to donate 1/2 of what they earn to their beloved government?

    3. And I believe that the wealthiest Americans don’t pay nearly that much.

      Why don’t we shift some of our burden to them so it’s more fair?

      1. Gecko, assuming that your statistic is true, maybe all the rest of us would be able to pay less if the rich folks and corporations were paying their fair share.

        1. The top 50% wage earners pay 96.54% of ALL INCOME TAXES.

          Of that, the top 1% wage earners pay 34.27% of ALL INCOME TAXES.

          How can you say they need to pay their fair share when they already pay damn near all the income tax taken in already?

          Now I’m far from rich but if I was, and ya’ll wanted me to pay even more than that, I’d have to pack up and move, man.

          And on that thought, what would you guys do if ALL the rich in this country did just that? What if they all just bought some big island and lived off of their money?

          Our economy would be worse than I could ever imagine.

          1. If they were solid you’d read about them in more credible sources, like decidedly conservative news outlets like Fox News. Ecen their standards are higher than that.

            Don’t let your passion for this blind you to the possibility that it may be propaganda. Remember: “lies, damned lies, and statistics…”

            1. anyone find and post actual government statistics proving NEWSMAN wrong? Not just left wing counter rhetoric.

              I have seen those stats many many times on the net. And Mike Rosen (I know you guys hate him but he is very factual) sites those numbers all the time.

              If they are wrong, I’d like to know…….

          2. Especially when compared to people who work two or three jobs, yet barely have enough to survive. I say if they’re not paying at least an equal percent in taxes as the rest of us, then it should be raised, despite how much it would come out to. The top one percent have more money than is possible to spend. The interest alone will take them through the rest of their life. There is no reason they should not pay an equal percent. I would be glad to do so if I was a multi-millionaire.

            1. For lots of other people to have jobs.  My company’s CEO makes a couple million a year, and I’m fine with it because he’s damn good at what he does and his hard work enables me to have a job.  

                1. But you missed the point.  Chris82 said

                  No one person works hard enough to truly earn a multi-million dollar salary.

                  That’s not true.

                  At least that’s what I’m saying.

                  Would you agree?

                  1. many people deserve to make a boatload of money either due to their innovation, energy, drive, ideas, talent, etc.  That’s what makes our country great, right ?

                    I was agreeing with Chris’s statement that it is fair for these people to pay an equal percentage of tax as the rest of us, and that they’re not going to fold up shop and skip town if their share of the tax burden increases.  

                    1. I’m glad we agree on the payment thing.  Is this one of those “stop the presses” moments?  🙂  

                    1. Like Jon Huntsman SR., who is spending his billions on cancer research?

                      Not every rich person is immoral, avoids taxes and is greedy.  There is no good reason to take money from someone, or tell them how much they can have, just because you don’t like the fact that they have a lot of it.

                    2. If the market allows them to make that much money, so be it, but the least they can do is pay the same percentage of taxes. Why not? If they donate to cause, they can get a tax deduction from that, but it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be paying the same starting percentage.

                      BTW, I don’t think that every rich person is immoral, greedy and avoids taxes. It’s not about that anyway.

            2. “You get paid by the amount of responsibility you are willing to take on. Not how hard you work.”

              And he is correct. His meaning is that the hardest working guy in the world, a guy say digging ditches faster than anyone else ever thought of. Or a guy pounding nails faster and more accurately than anyone else, will hit a level of pay never to increase much.

              But a guy that is willing to take on the responsibility of say running a company. Or running a department of a company. That guy will see his wages continue to rise all the time.

              My theory is that if someone makes multi millions of dollars a year, by god good for him. Why should we punish him so that his incentive to strive is taken away? If you guys want to, in my opinion, over tax the rich, what is their incentive to become rich in the first place?

              And let’s go back to my scenerio of all the rich saying fuck you guys and leaving? What would happen to the rest of us then?

              1. A more accurate question would be, Will he ever have the opportunity to take that responsibility?

                I believe that America is the land of opportunity, but just the opportunity to go up a couple of rungs on the ladder. Corporate CEOs aren’t recruited from the working class.

                Nonetheless, I see your point. But if you think that that’s all that they’re astronomical salaries are based on, you haven’t been reading the business pages very closely. There’s lots of cronyism on corporate boards, and these CEOs often sit on the boards of other companies, so they work out deals where they all vote for huge salaries for each other. Granted, the shareholders ought to take these boards more to account, but major shareholders often are the same kind of people playing the same game, so it only comes to a head when everything comes crashing down.

                1. And up until 1984 I was a carpenter. A good one too. But I could see that I would forever have to work outside in the cold, rain, snow, etc if I didn’t ever take my old man’s advice.

                  Now I make $30 an hour (which isn’t wealthy by anybody’s standards) running a bunch of guys and am second in command at my company (behind the actual owner)

                  So yes, I do think a ditch digger can become the leader of a company if he actually wants to. But it isn’t going to be handed to him on a silver platter.

                  I also agree with you that many of this country’s CEO’s did squat to earn or deserve their status. Nonetheless, they are there. We are not. My opinion is good for them.

                  As long as they aren’t stealing from working folks (which as we all know, some do and go to jail for it), let’s not punish them for being a success.

                  1. because we were talking about America’s wealthiest. I doubt many small businessmen and -women fit that category.

                    If you mean small businesses, then yes, an unskilled laborer can rise up at least that far.

                    I want to bring up an important point, though. Corporation are individuals under the Constitution, but they aren’t included when talking about America’s wealthiest. They should be, and doing so changes the picture. Parsing has repeatedly quoted a figure that they used to pay 35% of their income out as taxes, and now it’s 7%. I don’t know if thoses figures are accurate but the truth behind them is: That our corporate citizens no longer pay their fair share. They need to kick in more, and that would go a long way toward addressing our problems.

                2. Is a ditch digger equipped for the responsibility?

                  I don’t care how hard working he is.  If he doesn’t know crap about how to run a company, why should he be given the opportunity?  The ditch digger has a responsibility to prepare himself too.  And if he does, someone will take notice.

                  It’s not like we should drive around and find a ditch digger and just give them a multi-million dollar a year job.  That’s not the American dream.  The reality isn’t that there’s millions of ditch diggers out there who could be a CEO in a moment’s notice but are being held back.  The American dream is that if you work hard, and smart, and pursue your dreams, they can come true.

                  1. Given the evidence of who usually makes it, being born at least upper middle class is a major part of it. Not many of them can be found in the ditches.

                    Don’t kid yourself. Class is a big factor in determining the life you lead. I’m not saying it’s wrong, but it is the way it is. That was my point – Gecko made it sound like anyone can work into that kind of job, but that’s just not true.

                    1. When you said who usually makes it.  If the system was unfair, only a certain type could make it.

                      But there are all kinds…rich, poor, etc.  So the system isn’t as unfair as some would make others think.  Just because it’s hard doesn’t mean it’s automatically unfair.

                    2. Just that it doesn’t work the way Gecko described – that a ditch digger can rise to CEO. It turns out that that wasn’t what he was talking about.

                    3. I was more speaking in generalities on that subject, since there certainly are people who would think it to be unfair.

                      I apologize for not being clear on who that point was directed to.

                    5. He writes:

                      As a young enlisted man in the Army, I started a part time business selling items at the flea market with a $300.00 loan from my father (Who at the time was a teacher.)

                      I had never worked in a retail store, and had zero background education in the field, and zero experience.

                      I took that part time business to a full time retail start up 4 months later when my enlistment was up, and lived in the back of the store for 6 months. I expanded to 5 stores and at one time had near 50 employees.

                      I knew nothing about running a store or running a company.  But I was really good at multiple choice.  I made more of the right ones, than the opposite.

                      I sold that business in 1999 for a good sum of money.  

                      I am the former Democrat ditch digger who once had to apply for food stamps, and who with a change of prospective was by 30 a Reagan Republican millionaire, and now is in a comfortable working retirement.

                      I know first hand that the liberal Democrat victim class envy mentality does nothing for its practitioners, and that the entrepunerial optimism of Ronald Reagan, WFB, and Rush Limbaugh inspire one to be all that you can be to borrow a phrase.

                      xxxxxxxxxxx

                      My good friend is the living proof of Americas greatness and opportunities.  

                    6. And he was a dirt poor laborer like a ditch digger?

                      Read my earlier posts – I explicitly stated what you assert.

                      And why no link to your friend’s story? This clearly was written for public consumption.

                    8. This clearly was written for public consumption.

                      My friend was a humble enlisted man, and worked after High school as a construction laborer.  He is a personal friend, there is no link to what was written.

                      Today he is not the CEO of any public company, he has personal investment he manages in active retirement.

                      His net worth is several million, and hes in the tax category you were discussing.  He also gives 10% of his annual income to charity, and set up 2 perpetual education grants for students in his community.

                      His name is unknown to you and is not important to the discussion.  I personally know each of the facts I have presented to be true, and personally vouch for them.  

                    9. That’s great. But it does zero to refute anything I wrote. He didn’t start at the bottom and end up at the top.

                      So why would he write a private thing in such a “Hi, this is who I am” style if it wasn’t for the public? It reads like a testimonial.

                    10. This person didn’t start at the bottom?  So what’s the bottom?

                      Now they’re a millionaire?  That’s not the top?

                      What are the parameters of this discussion then?

                    11. is a school teacher’s son your idea of the bottom? That’s not even working class.

                    12. his father had $300 to lend him. Is that the bottom? He’s a “millionaire” – is that the top?

                      I think all y’all have been reading your stereotyped notions of what those bogeymen libs think into my posts at the expense of what I actually said.

                    13. How am interjecting anything to your posts?  NEWSMAN submits an example of someone who was poor (needed to borrow money), and who’s dad was a teacher, and you say “that’s not a good example, because he could borrow money and his dad was a teacher”.  Sorry, but I think it would be a stretch to say that teachers are middle class, it would be far more accurate to say that they’re on the lower end of things.  And so what if he needed to borrow money to get started?  Lot’s of people who are successful needed start up money at some point….because they were poor and didn’t have it themselves.  So yeah, I’d say that’s a bottom to top story.  And I don’t get how I’m reading too much into what you’re saying, or applying some kind of anti-lib biased towards you for thinking that…

                    14. that his teacher dad was poor. He could very well have been a private school teacher, and they’re pretty well compensated.

                      But that’s beside the point. Teachers are skilled labor, usually college educated, and are not in the same class as migrant farm workers, who are more my idea of who is at the bottom.

                      Class isn’t just about wages. It’s about background too.

                      And yes, those at the bottom don’t have access to startup funds. The poor don’t get loans because they don’t have collateral because they’re poor.

                      And how exactly did I lessen this man’s accomplishment? All I said is that he didn’t start out at the bottom, meaning he wasn’t born at the bottom. If he was on food stamps once, well so were a lot of very well-off college-educated guys I knew who chose to be slackers. No, Newsie’s friend is not a slacker. But he made choices that put him in that position, and he worked hard to get out of it. Good for him, but it is not an example of one who started at the bottom. His family had enough to help him out. The poor do not have relatives who can do that.

                    16. than the truly poor can ever scrape together.

                      Read my latest reply to Haners. Think about it for a while. Maybe you’ll understand what I was talking about. Then get back to me and explain how I was promoting class war just by talking about this. If you don’t do that (or answer how the congressmen committed treason) I’ll write you off as a thick headed asshat.

                      The ball’s in your court, Newsman. Good luck.

                    17. Like the fact that he got a loan and that his dad was a teacher put him in the privileged category in your book.  Instead of saying something like “that’s cool”, or whatever, it seemed like it was a “but…look at how priveleged he was”.

                      But if that’s not the tone you meant it, I’ll accept you at your word-lord knows I have had things come across the wrong way.

                      Just FYI-while poor families may not be able to help someone out, there are ways for poor people to get help.  So I don’t think that his father being able to give him 300.00 means that they had unlimited resources to help.  The person in this example could have easily gotten that money from other non-family resources.

                    18. I think you’re starting to see what I’m driving at.

                      Keep in mind what started this all – Gecko made the original claim that you could go from ditch digger (in my mind, like a migrant laborer, not some dude in the Army) to leader of a company (which I misread to mean Fortune 500 CEO, although in the context of earlier comments it’s understandable if I did). I say that you can’t. Maybe you can raise up to better jobs than that, then your children can keep climbing up, but not in one go.

                    19. I see what you’re driving at, I just don’t agree.  I think that someone can make it in one shot.

                      As a final thought, I think handcuffing the situation as someone is only on the bottom if they are say…a migrant worker isn’t fair.  While there are poor people who have made it (Jon Huntsman SR, take a look at that man!), there are others who may have started out ok, but life dealt them a bad hand (Ruth Minner, D-DE.  Went from single mom to Governor in one shot) but still make it.  So that’s why I think it lessens their accomplishment to say “well, yes what you did was cool and all, but you weren’t the child of a migrant worker, so it’s not as cool as it can be”.

                    20. Still, if it’s only one guy, then that just changes my point from “impossible” to “the odds are too astronomical for all but a few to do.”

                      I’m sorry you feel that I’m diminishing that individual’s achievement. All I was saying is that he didn’t meet the criteria I had in mind, which is true. (There are numerous ways to become rich; but since Gecko was talking about people being compensated for their responsibility, CEO of a major corporation is the only job that fits that bill. If this guy made his millions by selling his business, good for him but that wasn’t what Gecko and I were discussing.)

                    21. No worries.  If all we get from this conversation is that you check out Jon Huntsman SR, we’ll be in good shape.  He’s a remarkable guy.  If more people were like him….

                    22. It was about Chris Gardner. If the movie is accurate, he truly started at the bottom

                    23. Dang good movie.  Chris Gardner is a great man too.

                      And I think he was a CEO of a company for a while, wasn’t he?

                    25. He started in the lowest tax bracket qualifying for food stamps (With a wife and 2 young children), and now is in the top 5% of Taxpayers in our county.

                      That’s about as close to the bottom, and climbing to the top as one needs to get to refute your class envy, class warfare BS.

                      If his father were a poor farmer in the dust bowl days of the great depression, would that make the story better for you, because in fact his grandfather was.

                      A flat rate of tax is fair enough for GOD. A single rate taxes every man different amount based on his production, but the same rate for all.  Sales Tax, Property tax are flat rate taxes in most states.

                      The quoted remarks were in response to a question.

                    26. Or as an adult?

                      If he went down the ladder and came back up, that’s still different than starting at the bottom.

                      And if he’s in the top 5%, does that mean he’s in the same league as the Warren Buffets of the world?

                      And where am I advocating class warfare? I’m describing reality.

                      As I said, you’re reading into what I’m writing, not what I wrote.

                      Finally, is your friend a politician? I figured out what his story sounds like – a campaign bio piece. Am I write or wrong? If wrong, will you tell me exactly where this came from? Was it a personal email to you? Does your friend really communicate with his acquaintances in this fashion?

                    27. You aren’t serious, are you?  So now it’s not enough that someone is poor, they have to be poor at the right time?

                      Come on!

                    29. I see what you’re saying now, but I don’t think it’s so cut and dry as “you have to be born into a dirt poor family”

                      My favorite radio show host, Glenn Beck was an alcoholic and drug abuser for years.  But he worked through it, cleaned up, and has bettered his life.

                      I’d say that’s the American dream.  There’s no one way to fulfill it.

                    30. and also read his blog about his experiences recently in a hospital.  I thought he had some very good things to say, and find him to be a thoughtful person.  

                      Haners, tell me I am not turning into a Republican !

                    31. Turning into a Republican is kind of like going into a recession.  By the time you realize that it’s happened, it’s too late!

                      HAHAHAHA!

                      Just kidding.

                      Actually, one of the reasons I like Glenn Beck is because of his experiences, he is a thoughtful conservative-and he’s freakin’ funny.  You should check out his book “An Inconvienent Book”, it’s a cross between a political commentary book and Jon Stewart’s “America: The Book”

                    32. 1.  I vouch for its authenticity. PERIOD.

                      Now out of courtesy, I tell you he does not hold any elected office, and has never run for any paid elected office. (A school board once years ago.)

                      He was on food stamps after leaving the service, while working to support his wife and 2 young children.  

                      We live in the greatest country man has every produced by the grace and inspiration of god.

                    33. that one story about one person moving from the bottom to the top despite all odds does not mean that the same is possible for everyone. It’s great and I’m happy for him, but let’s not use foolish logic here.

                    34. For the record, I believe and never disputed the veracity of what he said. But I’ll say it again – the tone is that of something written for public consumption and it raises questions – if those questions make you uncomfortable, keep that in mind the next time you want to introduce something like this into the discussion.

                    35. The rate is “flat” but the impact is not.  same goes with fees.

                      I actually don’t have a problem with property taxes–I like taxes on wealth as opposed to income, that’s why estate taxes are so great.

                      In theory I have no problem with the flat tax: as long as there is a large personal exemption.  The problem with flat taxers is the goal is actually to reduce taxes not to improve tax collection: and that is a mix of 2 distinct issues.

              2. be realistic. There is not going to be some mass move of all the rich people to some island, just as the poor have not been staging an uprising against the few rich people. In anything, the latter is more likely.

                Rich people paying the same tax percentage as everyone else is not punishment – it’s fair. The only people who should not pay taxes are those that live under a realistically estimated cost of living. Also, taxes should not be taken out to put anyone below a realistic cost of living. If a multi-millionaire pays a little more in taxes, their still going to be ridiculously rich. What’s the problem?

                As for your responsibility comment, I actually agree with you. Please don’t get me wrong. I don’t think everyone should be making the same amount of money no matter what they do. Of course CEOs, doctors, etc. should make much more money than fast-food workers. (I do, however think teachers and police officers should make more, but that’s another story). But I still don’t think anyone works hard enough OR takes on enough responsibility that they have earned more money than they know what do to with. They can spare a little more so the percentage can drop for the rest of us. If your numbers are right, they may only have to rise to 38% to offset the rest of us decreasing from 44% to 38%. (that’s just an example). If your numbers are right.

                One more thing: I am a Democrat who believes that we can be fiscally responsible and socially fair (not equal, but fair). With that said, I am not saying we should raise the tax on the rich just so the government can have more money to do what it wants. Ideally we would be able to lower taxes for everyone. But in the meantime, we should all pay the same percent.

            3. has pointed out repeatedly the absurdity that his secretary pays a greater percentage of her income in taxes than he does.

              Come on, Gecko.  How can you think that is fair or good or good for the Republic?

              BTW, he’s a Dem.

          3. 5% of salary is 5% of salary.  That reminds me of a remark that Charles Kennedy made while he was leader of the Lib Dems; 80% (roundabout, I can’t remember the exact number) of all UK taxes are paid by the college educated.  Does that mean that the government was picking on grads?  No, they pay more because they make more.  If you can find a stat that says that the rich are paying a higher percentage, great, point made.  Otherwise, that argument doesn’t make any sense.

          4. hardly tells the tale when talking about who holds the wealth in relation to who pays the taxes.  It is a convenient way of lumping people with widely disparate wealth together.  

            A quick search found these figures that only go through 2001.  The concentration of wealth in the hands of the few has only increased since then. Keep these in mind when talking about the whole top 50%, most of them with little wealth, as compared with the amount of wealth held by only the top 1%.

            You will note that in 2001 the bottom 80%, including most of that top 50% figure,  held only 8.8% of the financial wealth as compared to 39.7% for the top 1%, 51.5% for the next 19% for a total of 91.2 % in the hands of the top 20%.  Once again,  the overwhelming majority of that top 20% holding a much smaller percentage then those close to the top.

            To use a figure as broad and meaningless as the top 50% is ridiculous, with such a huge difference between the top one or two percent and everyone else:

            Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2001

             Total Net Worth

            Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent

            1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%

            1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.4%

            1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.3%

            1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%

            1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%

            2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.5%

             Financial Wealth  

            Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent

            1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%

            1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%

            1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%

            1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%

            1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%

            2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.8%

            Total assets are defined as the sum of: (1) the gross value of owner-occupied housing; (2) other real estate owned by the household; (3) cash and demand deposits; (4) time and savings deposits, certificates of deposit, and money market accounts; (5) government bonds, corporate bonds, foreign bonds, and other financial securities; (6) the cash surrender value of life insurance plans; (7) the cash surrender value of pension plans, including IRAs, Keogh, and 401(k) plans; (8) corporate stock and mutual funds; (9) net equity in unincorporated businesses; and (10) equity in trust funds.

            Total liabilities are the sum of: (1) mortgage debt; (2) consumer debt, including auto loans; and (3) other debt. From Wolff (2004).

            http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whor…

    4. I think it’s those making 70K or less a year – over half of that is social security. So 22% is going into a retirement fund that gives you a very good rate of return.

      That leaves it at 22% for federal, state, county, city, & other. And for that you get police, education, health services, roads, military, etc.

      Not a bad deal…

    6. This is a flat out provable lie.  Government spending at all levels is a bit over 30% of Gross Domestic Product (all income made in the US) according to The Heritage Foundation.  The Federal percentage is (as of 2007) 19.9 of GDP using Federals Government expenditures from the CIA World Fact Book and dividing that by GNP of 13.79 trillion.  

      Unless personal income is way, way out of line with corporate income then it is impossible that it is as high as 44%.

  4. Three Democrat congressman go on a trip to Iraq before the war starts.  Critics call them spokesman for Saddam.  

    Ironically, it turns out Saddam secretly paid for the trip.

    http://www.politico.com/news/s…

    The lesson here: if you’re going to take a trip to defend a dictator, pay for it yourself.  

    1. Going from memory, they rightly criticized Bush and the chickenhawks’ reasons for war.

      There’s no reason to believe that they were aware that the church which funded the trip was  getting money from Saddam or any other tainted source.  

      1. Into his country with open arms and made a big deal about their comments.  He certainly tried to spin it as defense of him.

        Plus, if it was just being against the war, why go all the way over there, sit down and talk with him, and then make their statement?  Why not do it here, or from the House Chambers?  If all they wanted to do was speak out against war, they did it pretty stupidly.

        Because they played right into Saddam’s hands

        1. It’s news when they flew there to talk about it. It wasn’t when they said the same thing in Washington.

          And if Saddam did spin it – so what? That’s what politicians do. Doesn’t change what they actually said or why, does it?

          1. But I would do my darned-est to make sure a dictator wasn’t using me for propaganda.

            Are you saying that these Congressmans’ want for media attention justified them getting into a photo-op with Saddam right before we went in?  It’s not like this was done 20 years ago before Saddam was a threat.  This was weeks if not days before the war…

            1. surely doesn’t make you a supporter, and some people might even say that it is prudent to check something out before you bomb it.  

              That being said, I would agree that it was pretty bad judgment and it made one hell of a headline.

              1. But I had to chuckle a little bit about “checking something out before you bomb it”.  I had this little funny vision in my mind of sending “bomb inspectors” to a site before we bomb it…

                I promise I’m not trying to be snarky.  I just wanted to share an A.D.D. moment with you.

              1. that I welcome any facts to back up the notion that Iraq was a threat to American security. (I believe Saddam was possibly a threat to our oil interests, and I know that the American public can’t handle going to war over realpolitik reasons like that)…

                1. but it tends to underscore the position that we should not have gone to war, and tends to deflate the notion that the Congressmen’s stunt was bad (or treasonous as some mouth breathers would have us believe).

              1. Had they made the same trip in 1940 to Berlin, they would be rightfully scorned.

                Look at the prominent Americans who supported Germany before the war. Some were rightfully criticised as Nazi sympathizers.

                Both ill advised trips were giving aide and comfort to Americas enemies and on the wrong side of history.

                Remember we were never attacked by Germany or Saddam Hussein.

                1. Saddam never did.

                  In fact, he was our ally right up until the point bad diplomats accidently greenlighted his invasion of Kuwait.  Do we have to dredge up all those pictures of Republican bigwigs shaking his hand.

                2. then I challenge you to apply the hair-splitting talent you demonstrated about the “mission accomplished” banner and show me. Because the State Department allowed it. Don’t forget to check up the definition of treason while you do that.

                  Also, you’re analogy is ridiculous. Maybe you’d be closer to the mark if a) you said 1939 and b) were talking about Iraqi officials coming to America (we were the aggressor, remember?)

                  1. You get all the people who think Bush lied together, and impeach him before John McCain is inaugurated.

                    If Bush remains in power, I win, and I am right.

                    If you sucede and impeach Bush, then you win and I am wrong.

                    1. Probably an attempt to deflect the conversation. Unfortunately, you’re on the record as charging treason, and that’s serious business, much more than impeaching a president.

                      One last chance – back up you claim that this was, in fact, an act of treason on behalf of the congressmen (you called it factual, so how hard can it be for you?), or else just admit that you were spouting off. No harm in that, is there? We all spout off from time to time, although not always in a potentially libelous fashion.

                      But ignoring my challenge will be taken as proof that you’re just another out-of-his-depth ignoramus who can’t stand the heat. There have been a few of those during the time (2 years) that I’ve been here, and they always leave the kitchen sooner or later.

    2. .

      The Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament, Dr. Sadoun Hummadi, sent Joel a personal invitation.  

      He said Joel should come see for himself whether  there were any WMD.  

      In response, Joel said that,

      if George Bush thought that going to war would be good for the

      ___________ [fill in with either “GOP” or “country”]

      then he was all for it.  

    1.    That might be just the thing I need to get over my antipathy towards some of Obama’s obnoxious supporters and start volunteering for B.O.’s campaign if he ends up as the nominee.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

120 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols