Comments on: JUDGE BY ACTIONS NOT WORDS: Udall’s Own Words Doom his Campaign

By: Colorado Peak Politics - HYPOCRISY 101: Udall Finds New Heights As His Campaign Flails

Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:27:44 +0000

[…] Published on June 18, 2014 by ColoradoPeakPolitics PeakNation™, remember Sen. Mark Udall told us to judge him by his actions not his bullshit, um, words: Udall said. “I’m much more inclined to look at […]

By: Colorado Peak Politics - HYPOCRISY 101: Udall Finds New Heights As His Campaign Flails

Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:22:34 +0000

[…] Published on June 24, 2014 by ColoradoPeakPolitics PeakNation™, remember Sen. Mark Udall told us to judge him by his actions not his bullshit, um, words: Udall said. “I’m much more inclined to look at […]

By: Colorado Peak Politics - HYPOCRITE: After Half Billion in Earmarks, Udall Strangely Now Against Them

Tue, 06 May 2014 15:43:38 +0000

[…] has been spouting off how he likes to judge people based on their actions and not their words. Once again, we here at […]

By: Colorado Peak Politics - WAFFLE HOUSE: Udall’s Cringe-Worthy Awkward Interview

Colorado Peak Politics - WAFFLE HOUSE: Udall’s Cringe-Worthy Awkward Interview — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 20:05:41 +0000

[…] as we just got through a whole interview of you saying meaningless things. No, we’ll stick with your own advice and judge you based on your actions of the last four […]

By: Bob Stephani

Bob Stephani — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 01:33:51 +0000

Pete Kolbenschlag , trephination was a long-established health care procedure as well, but it's hardly an argument for drilling holes in people's heads. That argument is rather reminiscent of the adolescent whine, "Everybody is doing it!" As for it being a legal right, I think the old adage "My right to swing my fists end at your nose." is most applicable. Taking a life to exercise your "choice" is really not defensible. As for safe, you should consult patients of Kermit Gosnell, if you are able.
Regarding gay marriage, I don't speak for others. There are as many opinions as noses. I personally think there are many situations that we as a society need to provide avenues for and yet can be disagreeable. Do you think it possible that one could disagree with gay marriage yet acquiesce that there should be a provision for it? There are many who find fornication a bad idea, yet don't go around persecuting couples. Common law marriage is another example where there is a legal provision for what many would consider ill advised behavior. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I have a right to interfere. The gay marriage issue has gone far beyond just provision for a legal status. It has become a religious holy war for some gay activists. With that, I do disagree, because it starts to encroach into a person's freedom to their own beliefs and thoughts. And as far as I am concerned, anybody can and should love as much as possible, whomever they want.

By: Pete Kolbenschlag

Pete Kolbenschlag — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:06:44 +0000

Bob Stephani 'Reproductive choice' is a term for a legal right. And it would always remain a 'de facto' reality, as its a long-established health care procedure, so ensuring it's safe seems a common good. And to your other point, the Republican base and many of its pols do seem to want to tell people who they can love in certain ways, ways that are generally recognized as beneficial. Seems like meddling in the 'most private of matters' to me.

By: Bob Stephani

Bob Stephani — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:51:56 +0000

Reproductive choice is just white wash for killing, Pete. Also, no one is telling you who you can love. Love anybody you want. The legal definition of marriage is a different thing entirely. Personally, I don't really care, but don't throw such disingenuous buzz words around and call it valid.

By: Pete Kolbenschlag

Pete Kolbenschlag — Tue, 15 Apr 2014 19:40:34 +0000

The most private matters? Like reproductive choice and whom someone can love? Oh, wait that's the @coloGOP's 'version of freedom' ™.

By: Military Service Members Against Gun Control

Military Service Members Against Gun Control — Tue, 15 Apr 2014 19:09:13 +0000

You left out his anti Second Amendment votes to include banning magazines over 10 rounds and for Universal Background Check. UBC has significant public, most don't have a clue what it entails and WHY it is bad law. The 2A issue is now a hot and big one in Colorado, don't let Udall off on this one despite the bill not passing out of the Senate last March, he voted for UBC and several of the anti 2A amendments.