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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 01, 2014 11:33 PM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • 102 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly cruel as in punishing differences of belief."

–James Russell Lowell

Tweet
Share

Comments

102 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread”

  1. Nancy Cronk for Colorado Campaign Update

    Tracer Just In:

    Our opponent raised $2530 this past month. Cash on hand is $2,883.44 (He has about a zillion signs from the primary though.)
    We raised $9,280.00 this past month. Cash on hand is $10,997.44
    If any of my fellow Polsters want to walk or call for us, sign up at http://www.NancyCronk.com. I’m going to win this thing. Join me.

    Here are some reasons why my race in HD 37 is winnable and worthy of your time and investment:
    · I’ve lived in the S.E. Aurora/ E. Centennial area for 24 years and has raised a family here. I have good name recognition from years of volunteering for non-profits and in the public schools.
    · HD 37 is an open seat (far-right Rep. Spencer Swalm is term limited) with a history of very close races (Angela Engel took 49% in 2006 – Swalm’s first run).
    · I’ve won two elections in my district for the Cunningham Fire Protection Board. My opponent has never held elected office and lost to Democrat C. J. Whelan last year for Centennial City Council. Rep. Swalm did not endorse my opponent in the primary.
    · I jumped in late but hired a full-time campaign manager right out of the gate.
    · We’ve raised more than $20,000 and knocked on hundreds of doors in a very short time, showing we intend to win this thing. I need to raise another $70,000 to have enough fliers, mail-pieces, and yard signs, so please INVEST.
    · The Centennial/S.E. Aurora area becomes bluer every year. Rep. John Buckner – a Democrat – won his election two years ago in the formerly GOP district just north of HD 37 by a 14 point spread! I need to gain 5 points.
    · I’m running a clean, positive campaign focusing on strong schools, emergency services, and fighting for the middle class.
    · We’re getting great local press:

    1. “Elect Nancy Cronk for State Representative” – Denver Post
    2. “District 37 Democrat Makes Late Entry” – The Villager
    3. “Cronk Seeks To Turn HD37 Blue” – Centennial Citizen

    · All GOTV efforts in HD 37 help others who share the ballot including Sen. Mark Udall, Andrew Romanoff for Congress, Betsy Markey for State Treasurer, Joe Neguse for Secretary of State, Naquetta Ricks for CU Regent, Joan Lopez for Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder, etc.

    PLEASE donate generously or sign up to help us out. Go to http://www.NancyCronk.com under “get involved” to sign up.

        1. I'm not offended.

          As you must have guessed by now, am not a fan of Governor Hickenlooper. He has nearly zero credibility with me, but, as the de facto head of the Democratic party, he has enormous influence on all, I would dare say, other Democratic candidates. This is unfortunate, insofar as the current O&G debate is concerned. I know the environmental community and citizens statewide are perplexed.

          Governor "Frackenlooper" has now made himself irrelevant, by his obvious and unwavering devotion to the Oily Boys. It is now up to the people of Colorado to decide how Colorado will turn, towards a leading role in the transfomation of our national energy horizon, or a bastion of allegiance to the "drill, baby, drill"….(pollute, baby, pollute) mentality that expands the profit window of Anadarko, et al.

          The first floor of the Capitol is lost to us… we must exercise our "First Amendment Options".

  2. OMG, It is even more unpopular then ever.  Who would have thought?

    The numbers for Independants?

    59% unfavorable, 31% favorable.

     

     

    1. That's an interesting question they ask. I have a very unfavorable opinion of it because it was so incompetently administered. But I do support it if the alternative is nothing (or a vague "we'll use the market").

       

      1. David, that's a false choice.

        Before Obamacare there were state rurn systems that provided a safety net for many people with pre-existing conditions and the state mandated that certain levels of coverage were provided.  The state also determined limitations on pricing.

        Obamacare federalized what had previously been left to the states and changed the rules that govern all policies.

        The  state safety net was eliminated.  Now there is a federal one.  The mandated coveragess were made much more generous, driving up their cost. The pricing model was made to be less reflective of reality so the young are made to  subsidize the old costly insured.

        People are now able to see what Obamacare is, not what the politicians said it was going to be and they are pissed off.  It was not sold honestly, because the public would not have bought it, so now there will be a price to pay.  Barney Frank, hardly a Repbulican right-winger, had this to say today:

        "Former House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank says President Barack Obama lied to Americans about being able to keep their healthcare coverage, and he was "appalled" by the president's inaction during the botched Obamacare rollout.

        "Frankly, he should never have said as much as he did, that if you like your current healthcare plan, you can keep it," Frank, a retired Democrat congressman from Massachusetts, told The Huffington Post.  "That wasn't true. And you shouldn't lie to people. And they just lied to people."

         http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/frank-president-lie-obamacare/2014/08/02/id/586459#ixzz39FihKSKP 

        1. there were state rurn systems that provided a safety net for many people with pre-existing conditions and the state mandated that certain levels of coverage were provided.  The state also determined limitations on pricing.

          There is much here to question…

           that provided a safety net for many people with pre-existing conditions

          I don't remember seeing one of those…as to the rest..we all know how well the old system controlled prices…as in …NOT.

           

           

          1. DC, It has been around since 1991, called Cover Colorado.  This is from the Department of Insurance:

            If a person cannot qualify for individual coverage on their own because they are considered “uninsurable” due to a pre-existing medical condition, there is a state subsidized health plan called CoverColorado. Established by the Colorado legislature in 1991, CoverColorado is a non-profit organization whose mission is to provide a health insurance program that promotes access to health care for Coloradans whose health prohibits or substantially limits access to commercial health insurance.

            Since this is a high-risk pool, the rates offered are generally higher than commercial insurance carriers. If you have been denied health insurance due to a pre-existing medical condition, or have exhausted your COBRA benefits, CoverColorado may be able to help. While CoverColorado is not a low-income plan, this may be your best option if you are unable to obtain coverage elsewhere and can afford it.

            The enrollment in CoverColorado was 12,732 on December 31, 2010. Colorado is one of 34 states that have a high-risk pool insurance plan.

            picture of family

            https://www.covercolorado.org/ 

            1. Yeah, CoverColorado was real helpful.  When my sister lost her job, she contacted CoverColorado and found out that she could get insurance for only $900 a month.  Since her income was $0 and she ran through her savings trying to keep up with her rent, that was absolutely no help for her.  She was not eligible for Medicaid.

              Now that Obamacare is available, she has health insurance again.  Thanks, Obama!

            2. .Cover Colorado cost for me alone would have been $1400 a month and wouldn't (forgive the pun) have covered much of anything.  Under Connect for Health (Colorado Obamacare for  the ignorant, and yeah, I'm looking at you AC) I pay $606 a month, and my physical, my mammogram, my colonoscopy all have been covered.  I have a pre-existing condition and except for Cover Colorado which was useless, until Obamacare I had no viable options.  My employer couldn't get me medical insurance, because, oh, yeah, self-employed.  It's time for you to shush, little grasshopper, you know not of what you speak.

              Not that that's anything new.

              1. For Moddy and AC, that's the joy of the market at work.  Why would we need Sarah Palin's death panels when the market can price those with pre-existing conditions out of existence.

          2. There is almost no truth in what he says – surprise, surprise. The catastrophic coverage that was available was used by very few people because it was too expensive. It was not for those who could not afford insurance and health care, it was for those who were turned down by insurance companies.

            1. Real:

              The program was for people with pre-existing conditions.

              Poor folk were covered under medicaid which continues to cover them, albeit with relaxed definitions as to what is poor.

              1. Medicaid before was for the absolutely penniless, it is only since Obamacare that the working poor could be covered.

                Crawl back under your bridge, Troll.

        2. And, of course, the poll also shows a large majority prefer to KEEP Obamacare and improve it, rather than repeal it. 

          But, AC doesn't mention that, because he's a deceitful chickenshit unpatriotic troll.  

            1. Come on AC, tighten up that game.  It was only two clicks away from the results you like to show.

              After remaining steady for several months, the share of Americans expressing an unfavorable view of the Affordable Care Act rose to 53 percent in July, up eight percentage points from June, according to the latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll. The poll also finds that a majority of the public continues to prefer that Congress work to improve the health care law (60%) rather than to repeal and replace it (35%). [emphasis added]

              1. When I see any headline from our resident librarian that includes "OMG" and "Who Would Have Thought" it makes me think of "Valley Girls" and "Willfully Ignorant Fucksticks".  That's who'd have thought… (or "thunk" in their case)

            3. Apparently you just scan for negative talking point ready phrases and look no further. That' why so many of your links are to info that proves your opponents' points and undermines your own. It happens so often one would think you'd start paying closer attention. Oh I forgot. You're used to talking to the rightie blogosphere  where people accept whatever you feed them without question as long as it "proves" everything Obama and Dems in general suck. Tough habit to break.

              1. Well, when your core demographic are low info voters, whose political philosophy is taken in toto from bumper stickers (extra Patriot Points if they rhyme), headlines,  however misleading, are really all you need. 

                Readin's for Librul Sissies, anyway.

          1. In case he doesn't want to go to the link because he doesn't want to know:

            The survey found that 74 percent of Republicans said they were very or somewhat satisfied with their new coverage. Overall, 78 percent of Americans said they were satisfied: 73 percent of those enrolled in a private plan and 84 percent of those enrolled in Medicaid.

            There was a minimal difference between the previously uninsured and the previously insured: 79 percent of the former were satisfied and 77 percent of the latter were, according to the survey by the group, which is generally supportive of Obamacare.

            Those surveyed also reported being better off: 58 percent said that they were better off now than they were before, while 9 percent said they were worse off. And 81 percent said that they were optimistic that their new coverage would help them get the health care they need.

        4. Andrew, you compare Obama with competence and by that standard yes he is awful. But that's not the comparison. The choice was Obama vs. Romney and that was a choice between incompetent and purposely awful. 

          Same with Obamacare. As the others here have replied, the existing system was beyond broken. All the Republicans were offering was no. So it was Obamacare or no change.

          And keep in mind,  the incomptent management of Obama and Sebelius notwithstanding, we've now got a system that provides coverage to most everyone who wants it. If our choice was no change or a new system implemented by Twedledum and Twedledumber – then I'll take an improvement incompetently administered.

          And as long as the Republican alternative is nihlism, then I'll take the Democrats no matter how corrupt & incompetent.

        5. Fales equivalence.

          Many many Obama supporters were angry at the ACA rollout. Many are disappointed with Obamacare.  Very very few are going to vote for Beauprez or Gardner as a result. And even fewer will vote for Cruz, Santorum, Paul or Perry. (None of them are wishing they had voted for Romney or Huntsman. Or Gessler, Mase, or Tancredo.)

           

          1. J

            Here are the poll numbers by party affiliations, favorable-unfavorable as to the ACA.

            Dems 62% favor, 25% do not favor.

            Republicans 12% favor, 82% do not favor.

            Independants 31% favor, 59% do not favor.

            The question asked was ""As you may know, a health reform bill was signed into law in 2010. Given what you know about the health reform law, do you have a generally favorable or generally unfavorable opinion of it?"

            The question asked was not "do you have a generally favorable or generally unfavorable opinion as to the roll out or implementation of the law?"

            It is not a messaging problem.

            Most Americans do not like the law.

              1. Oh, who am I kidding? Everyone knows you're a coward and a liar. Dropping half-truths and blatant falsehoods, concealing information from the very same articles you cite if it undermines your talking points.  We'll see you when you've got a new "point" that you can't back up. 

        6. The ACA was opposed based on a hatred and fear of evil big government. Remember the death panels that were going to put senior citizens down like dogs that had gotten too old and sick. Those have not come about. The ACA was ultimately sold based on concrete examples of what Big Insurance had done or failed to do. The most damning example was the poor housewife who had lost two fingers and insurance would only pay to reattach one. She was only able to reattach one.

          Also the smart people among us knew it was not going to be a smooth rollout. Like any new system it has some bugs that need to be worked out. That does not mean you scrap the whole thing it means you fix the bugs. All that aside the Republicans have not come forward with a health care plan of their own. Put up or shut up people.

  3. Today's chuckle:  Coffman and Gardner voted with Democrats against the House Immigration Bill that takes away Dreamers rights.  Feeling the heat, are we?  You hypocrites!

      1. As Moddy likes to say, "they're running scared".  Problem for both of them, they don't know which direction to run!

        They are both trapped between a rock and a hard place because they'll never please both their old and (hoped-for) new constituents.

      1. yes, but the reality of it has always been in mind since the shutdown.

        This time, when Cruz chimed in, all i could thing was "No! No! No! Not again, dammit!!!!".

      2. Works for me now too. Possibilities:

        1. Something wrong on my connection. Unlikely both because I tried canttrustcoffman.com & www.canttrustcoffman.com which both failed while all other sites were good.
        2. Something wrong on DNS. Unlilkely as it is now good for me and I did not flush my DNS in the meantime.
        3. Something wrong with their server. That's quite possible as it timed out waiting for a response.
        4. They forgot to push it live. Again, very possible and fits what happened.

        If it's 3 or 4, my post here may have been what got them to go fix it (which was why I posted). If so, good as sending people to a url that doesn't respond won't get Andrew Romanoff elected.

        ps – As to my being passive/agressive, there's nothing passive about it. I think Obama is the 2nd most incompetent president we've had in the last 100 years (George W. Bush still beats him by a lot though).

        1. Yes, David. Your passive/aggressive post was what got them to fix it.  yes

          And trying to cover your ass when caught looking foolish by taking credit for what made you look foolish isn't passive/aggressive at all.  cool

          1. Maybe the server went down for a few minutes through no fault of theirs. Maybe they didn't do anything to fix it. Dave's a web guy, he knows that happens. It's too nice a Sunday to waste any more time on this.

            1. +1000. I've  had situations where the first time I clicked on something I couldn't get it and the second time, it was fine, sometimes a whole second later. Not a rare or sinister occurrence at all. David has gone of the deep end, probably knows it and hates to admit that he's been all hysterical over nothing because he's the big tech expert.

                2. That's clearly Obama's incompetence again. You should have DavidT post a complaint for you — I'm not an IT guru, but I hear tell that fixes all but the very most insoluble intertubes techy problems . . . 

                    1. His concerns are so narrowly Davidcentric, you can't really describe him  in terms of D or R or Indie, left, right or center. He's simply a DavidTist who seems surprised nobody else is.

        2. David, I just checked, and I got the email from Progress Now launching this Coffman site in April. I'm pretty sure I visited it then, and it's working for me today too. Nice share graphics in English and Spanish.

          But they didn't "push it live" just for you, big man, no.

          1. I hadn't seen it before so I assumed it was new – I was wrong on my assumption that it was new.

            So it probably was the server down. But I tried a couple of times over a half minute or so. So it was likely something that did require human intervention to fix. Likely, not unequivocally.

            And yes that was way overboard equating a temporarily down webstire with the utter disaster of the Obamacare website launch. I aopolgize for equating the technical skills of ProgressNow with the Obama Administration.

        3. For DNS, I recommend the following:

          208.67.222.222

          8.8.8.8

          If you're using Centurylink: 205.171.3.65

          All of these are public DNS'es – first being OpenDNS, second being Google, and third being the local ISP. Centurylink will take all 3.

          And yes, you need to flush the DNS if you have a old cache. It's easy enough. Start->Command Line. Then when you're a command prompt:

          ipconfig /dnsflush

          Easy enough. Add these to your current DNS list, because even if the primary fails, the secondary are usually a great backup. And Windows *WILL* rotate what responds best.

                2. My reply is to AC. His link didn't work. I'm in the correct reply box and everything. Oh, and sorry, bullshit, about my confusing use of the word bullshit. I wasn't using it as a reply to you but in its usual sense.

  6. Changing the subject, was anyone else put off by Obama's odd use of the word "folks' as in "we tortured some folks" ?  I'm against tortur.  It's clearly illegal both under US law, clearly including waterboarding (used to call it the water torture) as illegal torture, according to over a hundred years of legal precedent in both our civil and military courts as well as under international law. It's also an extremely unreliable method of getting actionable intel but a great way to get people to say what you want them to say, as in "You're a witch, aren't you you? Admit it!". That said, Obama's use of the word "folks" made it sound like we were torturing Andy, Opie and Aunt Bea.  Don't know what he was going for getting all folksy in that context. 

    1. I thought it was odd and out of place.

      Still not sure what he was trying to accomplish by using that choice of language.

      As to the clowns that were "tortured.", I wouldn't have had a problem if they were executed in the field, so I am not about to get worked up about it.

        1. I also would not have a problem if it turns out that's what happened to Bin Laden.

          Terrorist groups are not party to, nor protected by the Geneva conventions.

          "The Third Geneva Convention explicitly states that parties need not apply it to all conflicts, especially when the foes are not parties, and when enemies do not abide by its terms.[16]

          No terrorist group is a party to the Geneva Conventions. They have not signed, much less ratified, those treaties. Moreover, it is evident that Hamas, Hezbollah, and members of the global Al-Qaeda network spurn both the spirit and the letter of international treaties designed to ameliorate the cruelty of war. Bloody attacks in New York, Jerusalem, Bali, Madrid, and Beslan are testament to the fact that these groups seek to kill civilians rather than to take captives. And when Islamist terrorists do seize hostages, brutality rather than protection appears to be the rule. . . . 

          By violating every tenet of international law regarding treatment of prisoners, terrorist groups forfeit any entitlement to protection under the Geneva Conventions. U.S. forces would be within their legal rights to treat captured Al-Qaeda members as they did Nazi saboteurs during World War II—trial by military commission and execution by firing squad."

          http://www.meforum.org/651/does-human-rights-law-apply-to-terrorists

          1. That's why I know you never served. We honor the Geneva Convention. It doesn't matter who else doesn't, you spineless, lying chickenhawk. 

            Any member of the U.S. military (who you're so all-fired ready to send into battle to make you feel like a badass) could tell you that. 

            1. Cur:  You are a fool.

              The Third Geneva Convention requires that we can not interrogate prisoners of War.

              If the US applied the Geneva convention to terrorists they would be "prisoners of war" and we could not interrogate them.

              Let me clue you in.  We do interrogate them.

              You know how I know you are a fool?

              I read your post.

              1. Interrogation is not torture. And it's been proven that torture, as much as talking about it makes you feel like a badass, has done us NO GOOD in the way of useful intelligence.  

                Let me clue you in. You're not just a coward, a liar, a chickenhawk, and a bigot…..you're clearly ignorant. 

                1. You just said "we honor the Geneva Convention".

                  There are actually four Conventions.

                  The First deals with sick and wounded soldiers.

                  The Second deals with fighting at Sea.

                  The Third deals with prisoners of war.

                  The Fourth deals with not targeting civilians.

                  The Third Geneva Conventention prohibits asking a prisoner anything other than name, rank, age and number.

                  We claim to follow the principles of the Third Convention.  One of the principles is that the prohibition against interrogation only applies to lawful combatants and not unlawful combatants.

                  Your are welcome for my furthering of your limited education.

                  1. Spoken like a true Armchair General. 

                    You're totally right. I left off the "s".  I was also well-educated in those rules when I was in the military. I can now say without fear of contradiction, that you most certainly were not.  And I'm fully aware of the cowardly hair-splitting that takes place when you say someone we are torturing isn't really an enemy combatant.   Whatever gets you off, pal.  It's not like you ever had to follow those rules. 

                    1. I'd bet my left nut that AC was never in the military, Cur.  Anyone who hates America as much as he does would never incur any discomfort to  defend it.  

                    2. I think you'd have a safe bet there, Voyageur. Of course, it's not like AC has anything to put up in return….

      2. Then you're anti-American, opposed to our laws and constitution.  Americans have been prosecuted and convicted for the crime of water torture, the old term for water boarding but the same thing (Cheney probably came up with the new name specifically so he could claim it wasn't torture), in both military and civilian courts stretching back at least as far as the Spanish American War and as recently as the 70s when a Sheriff was convicted of  that crime in our criminal justice system.  Japanese were prosecuted for it in our military courts after WWII.

        When over a hundred years of American legal precedent call something torture, try, convict and punish people for it, your cute quotation marks give the entirely false impression that it really isn't torture. We aren't expected to uphold our laws and honor our constitution only when it's easy and the people protected are nice. Patriots believe it's important all the time as a matter of our most sacred principles, including when it's hard and the people protected are vicious. If you don't feel that way, you are no patriot, AC. 

        1. I dunno about Anti-American. I mean, he's definitely unpatriotic, as he'd rather see this country destroyed than see it progress along with the rest of the civilized world, and he'd rather see his own countrymen (not to mention terrified refugee children) sicken and starve before some global corporation is forced to pay a fraction of a percent closer to what their taxes should be; but he's not against all Americans.  Just the ones who don't think and believe and act exactly the way he does. It's a fine line. 

           

        2. BC.

          The Dems, for political purposes, issue a report calling an activity which had been authorized by the government's lawyers as legal as now torture and those who disagree with the second guessing are not American.

          I understand that the Dems hope to get their Progressive base to show up in 90 days but there are a whole lot of people who see this for what it is and remain Americans.  We get to vote too.

          You have been hanging out with Howard Dean and Andrew Romanoff too much.

          I might conclude you are naive and lack a memory of the recent past, but those failings do not require you to disavow your citizenship.

          1. She never said you weren't an American. She said you're Anti-American (which I think is a little bit too broad a generalization) and that you were no patriot (which is beyond question, since you've made it clear you'd rather see the country destroyed than progress, and see your countrymen sicken and starve. Hell, you get off on that idea).   

          2. So their pet lawyers ignored over a hundred years of legal precedent. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Fact: The technique now called waterboarding has been considered torture and both Americans and foreign nationals have been convicted of it and sent to prison by both US military and civilian courts. Period.

            Nobody had the guts or the political will to call them on it because it would have created an incredibly divisive crisis with the necessity for prosecutions all the way up the chain of command, something for which there was no appetite at the time. Fears of being seen as weak and siding with the terrorists among cowed Dems ran so high going into the damn Iraq war that all with serious presidential ambitions, including Kerry and HRC, already had gone along with the rush to a war that represents the most catastrophic strategic error in our history, completely destabilizing entire regions while achieving nothing of value to our national interests, quite the contrary. We broke it and it doesn't look like anybody is ever going to be able to fix it, at least not in any foreseeable future.

            Meanwhile the public was terrified of another 9/11 and would have been vehemently opposed.  It's no wonder even almost every pol who wasn't woefully ignorant was more than willing to go along with pretending that the Emperor wasn't bare ass naked.  We all know the quality of the Cheney/Bush administration's lackey lawyers. They were a joke.

            One more time, according to over a hundred years of established legal precedent in both military and civilian courts it very definitely is what it is. I provided links to the history of all this long ago, including Spanish American War, WWII and domestic non-military examples for starters.  It's pretty easy to find.

    2. Just closing the circle"

      Today we've had a national tragedy. Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center in an apparent terrorist attack on our country. I have spoken to the vice president, to the governor of New York, to the director of the FBI, and I've ordered that the full resources of the federal government go to help the victims and their families and to conduct a full-scale investigation to hunt down and to find those folks who committed this act.

       

    1. Twinkle Cavanaugh….now there's a credible source for God's Alabama coal plan.

      “We will not stand for what they are doing to our way of life in Alabama,” said the organization’s President Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh. “I hope all the citizens of Alabama will be in prayer that the right thing will be done.”

       

      1. These AL voters must be really that dumb enough to vote in someone named Twinkle.

        Well, hopefully, the EPA should consider making the entire state of Alabama a toxic waste dump as it's pretty much worthless…. After forcing the Republicans to take a massive loss on land speculations….

         

         

          1. There are god people there. In the larger cities, they've grown a fairly large tech industry in the last 30 years or so. High tech and backward attitudes don't often go together. My wife and I lived there for a year back in the early 90's and were pleasantly surprised at how progressive a lot of people were.  

          2. True. Offer them 500k incentives for them to move out of Alabama. Courtesy of the Doss Aviation (free flights as demanded, all moving expenses paid) 

            If Fluffy wants a certain doggy pillow to fly home that is filled with ostrich feathers, then the Republicans shall buy one and give it to Fluffy to ensure the comfortable move out of Alabama!!!

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

37 readers online now

Newsletter

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