Monday Open Thread

Apparently, all you have to do is shout louder.

88 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. KeepVegasOut says:

    People are starting to realize that they really will need to do some research on our ridiculously long ballot.

    More research the better, from my perspective. I’m working to fight Amendment 50, the one that would increase Gambling limits by 20 times, and basically bring Las Vegas to Colorado. (Shameless plug: Go visit http://KeepVegasOut.com)

    The more people know about that one, the better it is for the “no” side.

    But my question is this: I once heard that in Colorado you are safe if you vote no on the numbers (Amendment 50, et. al.) and Yes on the Letters, (Amendment O and the rest).

    Does anyone known where that comes from?

    • Laughing Boy says:

      Hate to break it to you, but you should probably just learn to play craps…and count tax money that’s going to roll in.

      Our gaming limits were established pre-(Bill) Clinton.  We didn’t envision legions of elderly-nickel-slot-playing commuters being the high rollers up in our casinos; playing in half-empty ghost towns.

      Yes on 50. If you find gambling immoral, don’t gamble.  

      • Gilpin Guy says:

        Black Hawk and Central City aren’t ghost towns but it makes them more of a destination town and maybe people who head to Vegas will rub elbows with the penny and nickel crowd.

        The casinos could advertise it as a green move to cut to down on the gas to drive to Vegas.

        How weird is this that I agree on an issue with LB?

      • DavidThi808 says:

        Yes on 50. If you find gambling immoral, don’t gamble.

        You ok with legalizing drugs & prostitution too? Same logic.

        • bob ewegen says:

          I would legalize, regulate and tax marijuana sales.  Likewise with prostitution.  In both cases, the prohibition approach has clearly failed.

          • Steve Balboni says:

            I’m a libertarian on this stuff. I just don’t care what adults choose to do amongst them or in their private/free time.  

          • divad says:

            Our jails are over-flowing with casualties of the “war on drugs” (namely small time users) and the cost of that alone is staggering–way beyond the simple  economic costs.  

            The taxation of marijuana and prostitution could go a long way to providing some much needed cash.  I’d rather have that money go towards things like education, rehabilitation, roads and the like than have it all go to black market drug lords and dealers.

            Prohibition didn’t work with alcohol and it hasn’t worked with pot either.  

          • Gilpin Guy says:

            We’re gambling on Wall Street with the national economy.  At least at Black Hawk and Central City people get to lose their money and get a little entertainment to boot.

          • Progressive Promoter says:

            Probably the only thing I agreed with Buckley on was his position on decriminalization of drugs and prostitution.  Bans just don’t work.  Tax ’em and develop treatment and other supportive services to reduce their use and impact.

          • DavidThi808 says:

            I just wanted to see if we had intellectual consistency. So yes, lets legalize and regulate all of the sin crimes. But lets have the legislature set the boundaries of how they will operate, not initiatives from casino owners.

    • ThillyWabbit says:

      Initiatives are put on the ballot by petition, referenda are put on the ballot by the legislature. Whether they are “safe” I suppose depends on whether you like who is in the legislature.

      This year, most of the referenda are harmless, as they remove outdated, expired, obsolete, etc. parts of the Constitution.

    • PERA hopeful says:

      The referenda (designated by letters) have been tested through the political process at the legislature and reviewed by LLS.  There’s less of a chance of screwed-up language coming out of the referendum process.  Therefore, you can decide based on the substance of the referendum and don’t have to worry about it containing a ticking time bomb like, say, TABOR and Am. 41.

      I say “No on Numbers,” but I have been known to break that rule from time to time.  For instance, this year I am voting YES YES YES on 59, and am urging everybody I know to do the same (and of course YES ON O, too).

      • adam.kretz says:

        Let us younguns run for office earlier…

        But on a serious note, 59 and O are two of the most important ballot initiatives. I’ve been telling everyone to vote NO on everything up through 54 and yes on 59.  

        • libgirl says:

          Colorado Election Reflection

          A ballot’s a ballot, no matter how long

          Or confusing or boring or contradictory or wrong.

          Your vote is your vote so get into high gear

          And embrace that your vote really matters this year.

          46 is a no, ’cause it ends equal rights

          and starts any number of affirmative action court fights.

          47 is a no because it’s against working families.

          It’s Jonathan Coors’ big attempt to look manly.

          48 gives a fertilized egg citizenship powers

          So 48 is a no, because those rights are ours.

          49 is a no because it is a plot

          To undercut all labor unions a lot.

          Now 50’s okay if you think education

          Should be funded by gambling  – that’s a shaky foundation!

          51 should be yes if you think that the folks

          who are developmentally disabled deserve a few strokes.

          52 is a no – it’s a Josh Penry plot

          to divert away existing funding a lot.

          53 is a yes  – This says corporate titans

          who do wrong , go to jail – this is certain to frighten!

          54 is a no  – a conservative scheme

          To sustain the far-right’s anti-labor union dream.

          55 is a yes – this requires just cause

          to fire an employee; that’s a reasonable clause.

          56 and 57 are really a reach

          These aren’t public policy, just figures of speech.

          58 is a yes; it’s the Governor’s plan

          to restore taxes on oil – they will and they can

          pay a bit more for open space and for colleges

          These are needs that most of Colorado acknowledges.

          59 is a yes  – and it may be the most vital

          State savings is the purpose and SAFE is the title.

          Ref. L. is a maybe – it allows for young pols

          To run for high office in the Capitol halls.

          Ref.s M and N are about obsolete provisions

          In the state’s constitution. (Not real complex decisions!)

          And if you are tired, fed up and disgusted

          Then vote for Ref. O, ’cause this system is busted.

        • bob ewegen says:

          and everything else fails, this will have been an outstandingly productive election. If everything else passes and O and 59 fail, it will mean the end of civilization as we know it and the Raiders will win the next ten Super Bowls.

  2. Laughing Boy says:

    Are you guys kidding me?

    I sure hope this creeps at least a couple of you out.  It certainly does the Governor of the State he’s using the prosecutors in…

    • cologeek says:

      of what we could probably expect under and Obama administration.  And just another example of what the campaign and its’ surrogates have been doing for months in trying to silence his critics.

    • Steve Balboni says:

      That guy is about as crooked as they come. He has multiple scandals and has abused his power and authority to the extent that he’s not seeking re-election. One and done and the Dem nominee (Nixon) is poised to clobber the Republican (a sitting Congressman). Matt Blunt has zero credibility, he’s a lame duck partisan with nothing to lose. That he would use his office to push partisan smears is hardly a surprise.  

      • Laughing Boy says:

        But what about the concept of something called a “truth squad” with prosecutors in US politics?  A good idea?  What if the Bush admin. had done something like that?

        Please separate my legitimate questions from the idiotic slurring of Nancy Underpants.

        • GeoGreg says:

          From

          The Springfield (MO) News-Leader:

          http://www.news-leader.com/app

          But the KMOV reporter who first reported about two St. Louis County prosecutors joining the truth squad says “in the retelling of the story, it got out of control.”

          “If they think a group has put out a misleading ad, they’re basically going to call a press conference and say the ad is misleading,” reporter John Mills told the News-Leader on Sunday. “I’m sure the Republicans would do the same thing.”

          And sure enough, McCain had a “truth squad” set up at least by January 2008.  I don’t know if it contained any prosecutors.  But it did have retired military, apparently.  And we all know how scared liberals are of the military.  We’re liable to jump back into our Volvos, gulp some latte in desperation, and start driving towards Canada!

          http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit

        • Steve Balboni says:

          Barack Obama is not in a position of authority over said prosecutors. He can’t force them to participate, they willingly choose to do so. They are local officials, not Federal.

          There’s a difference between ordering your underlings to carry out political dirty tricks (see Abu Gonzalez and the US Attorney scandal) and people whom you have no authority over acting of their own free will to help you.

          What’s the controversy supposed to be exactly?  

    • Half Glass Full says:

      Wow, was that a poorly worded press release. I have no idea, after reading it, what Obama’s campaign actually DID or SAID.

      The language in the press release also sounds rather shrill and hysterical.

      So what did that big meanie Obama do to the poor widdle conservative shock jocks and Swift Boaters?

  3. Nancy L Baldwin says:

    The only “Truth” that the law enforcement will allow to be told is that Obama is a Christian that wants to cut taxes for the middle class.

    Any other message is subject to scrutiny by law enforcement and may be prosecuted.  

    And Obama ran that commercial about Hillary and 1984!  This is outrageous.  Obama is a scary guy.  Very, very scary.  

    This sort of stuff is exactly how Hitler silenced his critics.

  4. Laughing Boy says:

    A scene from my favorite movie of his – enjoy your Monday…

  5. ClubTwitty says:

    And I think that settles it.  I am switching parties.

  6. Danny the Red (hair) says:

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/161215

    John McCain wants us to think he’s a man of character when he’s actually just acharacter. There’s a big difference between the two. “Character” connotes moral courage and fortitude, which McCain once possessed but now seems to have misplaced. By contrast, “a character” is merely a person with an instinct for eccentric self-drama that can be amusing or disturbing depending on the circumstances.

    Given all that, I wasn’t shocked to learn from a friend of Paulson’s, who didn’t want to risk his friendship by being identified, that Paulson thinks Obama is much more impressive than McCain in their private talks. (Not that Paulson is as much of an authority on all things financial as he thinks he is.) And it’s hardly surprising that the country’s last remaining financial grown-ups, Paul Volcker and Warren Buffett, are strongly pro-Obama. In fact, Obama could do worse than adopt a “we’ll have what Warren’s having” approach to the fine print of what the taxpayers get in return for their proposed investment.

  7. Gecko says:

    where I can get a “NoBama” bumper sticker at?

    I have seen them on several cars lately and will need at least three.

    Someone told me a few days ago when I asked where are all these supposed Obama fans at, that I hang out with the wrong people. Basically with people with the same lifestyles as me.

    That said my wife’s sister and brother-in-law came up from San Antonio for a week. The sister is a lawyer and the husband is a professor in sociology. I did not say a word during the debates until they let it be known that Obama will be the very worst thing for this country ever.

    Not just the worst thing in awhile, but ever.

    Can someone please explain this to me? I would think at least the professor would be a fan but neither can stand the man.

    I love it.

    • Aristotle says:

      They’re your relatives.

      • ClubTwitty says:

        after 8 years of the failed GW presidency, it’s hard to imagine anything worse.  Unless its McCain/Palin.

      • Gecko says:

        They are my wife’s relatives but that does not matter.

        The point is they are what most people would consider to be liberal, and they are deathly afraid of NoBama.

        Ya’ll told me the only reason I have yet to meet a NoBama fan is because I hang with rednecks and bikers in El Paso County. I told you I met many people in Wisconsin and Illinois and not a one is a fan of him. Now I tell you about people from south Texas and you say it is because they are my relatives.

        Nice try but it holds no water.

        Bama is going to face a very very tough race. You guys think it will be a cake walk. Wrong. More people than you can ever imagine are afraid of him and his tax lovin (patriotic duty) partner.

        • ClubTwitty says:

          but I don’t think your little anecdotes constitute much in the way of value either.

           

        • Middle of the Road says:

          I don’t think anyone thinks this is going to be a cake walk, at least not on the blogs I frequent. Both Republicans and Democrats have said this is going to be a tough race and down to the wire. It’s really going to depend on who gets out the votes and who the voters feel is more trustworthy to lead us out of the multiple messes your president has left as an inheritance.

          As for your bumper stickers, I suggest you google it. There are lots of independent sites on the web selling stickers for both Dems and Repubs.

          And to counter your inane analogy, I meet clients every week from out of state since I own a business in a tourist town and right now, 3 to 1 are openly supporting Barack Obama.

          Why are your relatives for McCain? How the hell should we know? Why don’t you ask them? Why are my clients running 3 to 1 for Obama? I’d tell you if I thought you gave a fuck, Gecko, but we both know the truth isn’t a commodity you care much for.

        • Aristotle says:

          I highly doubt that.

          But I’ll give you a chance to prove it.

          How are they liberal?

        • Aristotle says:

          yes, they’re your relatives. They don’t have to be blood to be relatives. Doi…

        • One Queer Dude says:

          If they’re your wife’s relatives and you’re from Arkansas, Gecko, then they’re probably genetically your relatives, too

    • Half Glass Full says:

      Or makestickers.

      “NoBama” is fair game. Just don’t get one of those racist “Obama Bin Lyin'” stickers I saw on a car recently. Disgusting.

      I like “McCain and Palin are Bush League.”

    • sxp151 says:

      Could it be because I live in Boulder, and all my friends are liberals?

      Actually, no, you must be right. It’s the Double Reverse Bradley Effect Times Nine!

      Nobody supports Obama anywhere, it’s just that all the media is a million billion percent in the tank for Obama.

  8. Nancy L Baldwin says:

    that the failure of the financial system was a function of Government forcing banks to make loans to people that couldn’t afford them.

    This you tube is the best explanation I have seen yet as to what really happened.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

    Yep.  The Government as at the root cause of the current crisis (and failed socialist programs).

  9. sxp151 says:

    Failing in house, 207 to 226. They seem to be holding the vote open to try to get some minds changed.

    So all that nonsense negotiating this weekend with House Republicans was for nothing?

    McDrama fails again.

  10. Cartesian Doubt says:

    Most foreign currencies are pegged to the Dollar. What would happen if these countries depegged their currency from the Dollar and pegged their currencies to the Euro, perceived to be a stronger and more stable currency?

    I imagine the Dollar would be greatly devalued, making our current economic crisis monumentally worse.  

    • DavidThi808 says:

      The dollar is picked because the U.S. is still the largest and most secure (long term) economy in the world. What they can do is let their currency float but that actually helps us long term.

      • Cartesian Doubt says:

        I’ve been wondering for a week. Like McCain, economics isn’t my strong suit.

        • Danny the Red (hair) says:

          Unpegging the $ will hammer both the $ and Treasurys because foriegn treasury will move central bank reserves away from $ into a basket of other currencies (Euro mainly).

          This would entail selling US Treasurys.

          • Cartesian Doubt says:

            for the long-term stability of the Dollar. There was some panic, if I recall correctly, when the US got off the gold standard.

            Even the perception that the DOllar is weak has sent prices up. I’d hate to see what would happen if the Dollar was no longer the currency of choice.

          • DavidThi808 says:

            But I know we’ve been pushing China to float their currency rather than tying it to the dollar because that tying harms us.

            • Danny the Red (hair) says:

              when we were running surpluses it was a good idea-it would have helped the trade balances and their was actually a US soveriegn shortage (sounds weird when we’ve got trillions in debt, but the debt doesn’t matter but deficits do: growth not size).

              I don’t hear that as much anymore because it would increase financing costs.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.