A suspect switch
Odd how we can open our arms to people who do not agree with the basic principle
of the Democratic Party as, at least I understand it, "the party of the people."
Rep. Debbie Stafford's comments during the immigration debate at the legislature
were mean, disrespectful and hurtful. Now she is a member of the party of the
people? ("Stafford makes political switch," Oct. 12.) Are the Democrats
changing, or are they just becoming more like the Grand Old Party? This is just
what we need in the state legislature - another anti-immigrant Democrat!
Has she really been born again, or is she backsliding? I can't welcome the Rev.
Stafford until she repents and asks forgiveness.
Fidel "Butch" Montoya, Denver
Your a clown Montoya, "The Party of the People" except for the Colorado working class. The hatred is coming from the democrats, their attacks on working people of colorado shows they are "the party of the illegals"
Posted by FW on October 26, 2007 05:38 AMbutch just go sit in the corner and collect your government pension and stop pushing for all your illigal brothers and sisters to get government jobs, better know as welfare.
illigal is illigal. the open arms you talk about are yours butch as I am really getting tired of pushing 1 for english. you like spanish so much move to mexico.
How many times can you spell illegal wrong? Are you sure you are a citizen? You know we do have schools.
Posted by on October 26, 2007 07:18 AMmust have gone to DPS I am guessing 718. they dont teach in English there anymore and could be a misunderstanding in trying to translate back to English.
Posted by on October 26, 2007 07:46 AMPARTY OF THE PEOPLE?????
Rep. Charlie Rangel, the D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T House Ways and Means Chairman has been saying he wants to pass "the mother of all tax reforms," and even that doesn't do justice to the $3.5 trillion-dollar tax hike he delivered unto Washington yesterday. That's one nasty and bad mother Charlie.
No one thinks his tax plan has a chance of becoming law this year, but its beauty is as a signal of Democratic intentions for 2009. We are getting a sneak preview a year early. In proposing what would be the largest tax increase in history, Mr. Rangel is showing the world what he wants the tax code to look like if Democrats run the entire government.
That's some PARTY of the people, Butch. The only thing being invited to attend is the taxpayer's wallet. That's a PARTY I can do without.
Hank,
As you know, only people who have income pay taxes. So you don't have to worry.
And yet Hank will vote for all the spend and tax this country can handle.
I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning...smells like far right wing politics.
Posted by jay on October 26, 2007 08:37 AMStafford likely switched for the same reason that Ben Knighthorse-Campbell switched parties in the opposite direction in the mid-90s, and the reason that the corporate $$$ on K-Street in Washington DC are dramatically shifting from Republicans to Democrats.
Rats leave a sinking ship. And both parties have a history of embracing rats, and one more won't kill Democrats.
Posted by on October 26, 2007 09:12 AM"corporate $$$ on K-Street in Washington DC are dramatically shifting from Republicans to Democrats"
link please
Posted by jay on October 26, 2007 09:55 AMMoney likes to follow the winners, which the G.O.P. clearly is not.
Posted by Sean on October 26, 2007 10:00 AMTHE DEMOCRAT TAX HIKE THAT ATE THE MIDDLE-CLASS ALIVE: THE ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX--AMT!
Class warfare designed to soak the rich turned around and bit the dems in the ass and stRANGLED their base. Now its evil, bad and has to go.
Just wait Joe-6-Pac, Charlie's next financial harpoon is going to hit you when and where you least expect it! It always does.
Posted by Hank on October 26, 2007 11:39 AMHank....I assume then that you were opposed to the recent Republican tax code changes...by your own logic of course.
Posted by jay on October 26, 2007 12:41 PMHey butch,
It's the ILLEGAL immigrants that people have a problem with. Why do you bad mouth people who are in favor of controlling our borders and illegal immigration by labeling
them "anti-immigrant", instead of "anti illegal immigrant"?
Everybody sees through your smoke screen.
Posted by RickyLee on October 26, 2007 02:10 PMAND....
Come see DAMN YANKEES opening tonight at The Longmont Theatre Company, 513 Main St., Longmont. Runs till Nov.17th.
Tickets $17.00, call 303.772.5200
Directed by yours truly,
Richard Lee Landrum II
Longmont
Butch, thanks for acknowledging that it is primarily the Democrats that are for Illegal immigration, keep it up.
Posted by brain on October 26, 2007 03:44 PMEvidently you don't have a problem welcoming people who sneak into the US and rape, steal and murder, Butch.
Posted by iftheshoefits on October 26, 2007 03:53 PMJay hasn't heard of google yet? Why do others need to do your research?
"If you want to know how good liberals can tolerate such largesse for the rich, keep in mind that in Washington quids often come with a quo. The latest FEC fundraising reports indicate that industry lobbyists have shifted their allegiance from Republicans and are now funneling cash to Democrats they expect to hold their majority. Roll Call newspaper, which covers Congress, reports that in the first half of 2007 business lobbyists gave "all or most of their cash to Democratic candidates and party committees."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119309729802267740.html
Posted by on October 26, 2007 09:51 PMDan Issel said it best:
"Go drink another beer you piece of shit mexican"
SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE BUTCH!
"Party of the people"What people?Terrorist,illegals,thieves,murderers,child rapist,the democraps core.And we can't forget about the people who refused to get informed of what is going on in this world.
Posted by Keith on October 27, 2007 09:21 AMKeith,
You are very close to the truth! "The Party of the people." means the party for the people paying no taxes or receiving their financial livelihood from the government. These are the people that vote but would not be affected by an tax increase, they pay no taxes so why would they care. This group would allow any tax increase focused at the rich (people paying taxes) to become law.
If you look at the new SCHIP bill, most of the people fighting for this bill will not be asked to pay for it. The only people paying would be those terrible smokers. If I don't eat at McDonald's and a bill comes up and it will be paid for by only people who eat at McDonald's I probably would find little objections to it. This is the mind set of the Democrat Party. They will continue to find a minority of people to pay for their tax increase I am not a smoker but object to having a individual group of people paying for something that if it was indeed a good program should be paid by everyone. This way we could get an honest vote on the program.
Once the Dems have a majority of people sitting around living off the government they can implement any socialist program they want. It is simply numbers, when the majority of the people are living off the minority you have a total socialist government.
This is the ultimate goal of the "Party of the People"
Posted by jgd777 on October 27, 2007 11:24 AMExactly, jgd777!
Posted by brain on October 27, 2007 11:59 AMWow...the ignorant generalizations from the far right are in no short order here.
Just a reminder folks....the beatings will continue until the Republican party starts representing the vast majority of the American people:
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 27-30, 2007. N=1,114 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"
Approve 30% (almost tying the record)
Disapprove 68%
Unsure 1%
"Which political party -- the Democrats or the Republicans -- do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq?"
Democrats 49
Republicans 34
Both 3
Neither 11
Unsure 3
"All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"
Worth It 38%
Not Worth It 59%
Unsure 3%
"Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; OR, do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there?"
Keep Forces 43%
Withdraw Forces 54%
Unsure 3%
"As you may know Bush has sent approximately 28 thousand additional U.S. military forces to try to restore civil order in parts of Iraq. Do you think this increase in U.S. forces has made the situation in Iraq better, worse, or hasn't made much difference?"
Better 27%
Worse 15%
Not Much Difference 56%
Unsure 3%
I found this to be relevant. We can finally dismiss that far right wing talking point that tries to imply that the Dems "lied" when they camaigned about doing what they could to end the war....or that there is support outside of the far right for cutting off funding for the troops on the field.
"Do you think Democrats in Congress have gone too far or not far enough in opposing the war in Iraq?"
Too Far 35
Not Far Enough 55
Right Amount5
Unsure 5
"The Bush Administration has requested nearly 190 billion dollars to fund the wars and related U.S. activities in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next year. This is about 40 billion dollars more than first estimated. Do you think Congress should approve all of this funding request, or reduce it?"
Approve All 27%
Reduce It 67%
Shouldn't Approve Any Money 3% (any questions)
Unsure 3%
"Thinking ahead to the next presidential election, do you think a Democratic or a Republican president would do a better job resolving the situation in Iraq?"
Democratic 51%
Republican 31%
Depends 6%
No Difference 8%
Unsure 4%
CBS News Poll. Sept. 14-16, 2007. N=706 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (for all adults).
Sorry...great polling, but wrong list.
These are the issues with which Americans overwhelmingly trust the Dems over the Rubs:
Dealing with global warming
Dealing with health care
Dealing with gas prices
Improving America's standing in the world
Reducing the federal deficit
Dealing with energy policy
Dealing with education
Dealing with homeownership issues
Controlling government spending
Dealing with the economy
Dealing with Iraq
Dealing with immigration
Dealing with ethics in government
Dealing with taxes
Dealing with China
Protecting America's interests on trade issues
Dealing with the war on terrorism
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll
N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1
Again people....this isn't rocket science. The Republican party needs to STOP obstructing legislation and initiatives with the support of the vast majority of Americans or the Nov 06-like beatings will continue.
Wouldn't it be a nice change if Republicans could actually run on their track record instead of having to resort to swiftboating, scare tactics and wedge issue to stay competitive?
Posted by jay on October 27, 2007 01:20 PMNext time you ask those questions, maybe you should ask the people who will be paying for these programs and not just the DNC.
When you have a majority of the people living off the government, they will agree with any party who will keep giving them that money. You have just proven the point I have been making all along.
According to the polls I have personally taken the results are
Is Jay an far left loon?
Yes 90%
No 10%
There you have it. The vast majority agree Jay is a far left loon!
I just looked at the poll you mentioned, seems to me the numbers have only changed slightly over the last 7 years in most of the categories. What they tell me is the Dems are still pissed at losing the last presidential elections. In 2000 the numbers were 52-48 and that hasn't changed much. Half want a "nanny state" (the ones not paying taxes) and the other half want a free economy, (the ones actually paying taxes).
So what is your point?
jdg...don't pout.
no one is talking about a "nanny state" except for freaks like Rush and Rosen (and their listeners of course)
Posted by jay on October 27, 2007 04:58 PMJay,
Of course the Dems never say they want a "nanny state" but it is exactly what they want. Like Hillary they never say anything meaningful , but their actions speak volumes.
Jay, what would you call a country where the top 2% of the people pay more taxes then the bottom 50% and some people want to tax that 2% even more.?
Posted by jgd777 on October 27, 2007 10:15 PMcrickets from jay land
Posted by on October 28, 2007 09:27 AMlol....jgd...do you know why scientific polling is valid?
Have you ever taken a college level statistics class?
Furthermore...do you believe that the folks who make the most money should NOT pay the most taxes?
Now this one isn't hard at all....do you agree with the republican tax code changes that shifted a greater share of the tax burden from the upper to middle class? Let me clarify so you'll have the education to answer...this means that WHEN we have to raise taxes to pay for the republican spending spree, iraq war and tax cuts....the middle class will end up paying more of the bill (and the upper less) than before the Rubs consolidated power in 2000.
Think hard.
Posted by jay on October 28, 2007 10:29 AMJay,
I absolutely believe the rich should pay their fair share, However do I believe more than half of the people should pay no taxes and in some cases even get back more than they paid in, absolutely not. Do I believe that those top 20% should pay taxes so the politicians can use that money to buy more votes by handing it out to more and more people? I don't think so
And why do we have to raise taxes, the last I checked we have more and more revenue being generated by those so called massive tax cuts to the "rich" And those tax cuts have created more employment and thus creating a larger middle class.
What is the matter Jay, is that too many people not depended on the government for their financial support. Oh no! Hillary will have to come up with some new programs so she can buy some more votes. Oh yea! we can have the rich pay for them, oh wait, we could have the smokers pay, no one likes them anyway.
Maybe if we got rid of all of the illegal immigrates we could have people making a decent living again, and increase the middle class to a larger number and then more people could share in the tax burden of the country and stop putting it all on the so called rich. Wow what a novel idea!!
Posted by jgd777 on October 28, 2007 08:50 PM"And why do we have to raise taxes"
Take an college economics class jgd. We are going to have to raise taxes because of the irresponsible fiscal policies of the last 7 years.
" those tax cuts have created more employment and thus creating a larger middle class. "
that is a myth...again...take a college level economics class
" Oh no! Hillary will have to come up with some new programs so she can buy some more votes. Oh yea! we can have the rich pay for them, oh wait, we could have the smokers pay, no one likes them anyway."
this is yet another mythical strawman argument
"Maybe if we got rid of all of the illegal immigrates we could have people making a decent living again, and increase the middle class to a larger number and then more people could share in the tax burden of the country and stop putting it all on the so called rich. Wow what a novel idea!!"
once again we see this kind of naivity borne from a lack of education. stop scapegoating illegal immigrants for economic issues that have little to nothing to do with them
Like playing dodgeball with children.