While Tim Eyman this week was flooding local media with press releases touting an inane new initiative (but not touting the State Supreme Court’s thrashing of his I-776 appeal), a far more dangerous ideologue was filing an initiative of his own.
Rev. Ken Hutcherson, of the Eastside evangelical powerhouse Antioch Bible Church, has three things that Eyman no longer has: money, followers, and (at least in some circles) credibility. In the wake of Eyman’s bungling this year of a slam-dunk initiative to overturn Washington’s new gay civil rights law, Hutcherson and other evangelical leaders promised such an initiative — which Eyman essentially stole from them — would be back.
Now it is.
Hutcherson quietly filed exactly such an initiative late last week, a fact only reported yesterday. Maybe that’s because the initiative is purely symbolic and is going nowhere. Hutcherson would need to gather 225,000 signatures by the end of December. The state has not even reviewed the initiative’s language yet or given it a title and number, essential steps before Hutcherson can even start gathering signatures. It really would take an act of someone’s God for this initiative to qualify for next year’s ballot.
Except that by refiling the identical initiative on Jan. 2, with the initiative language already approved, Hutcherson gets a few extra days in 2007 to gather signatures, and four extra weeks this month to organize his anti-fag army. Hutcherson is many things, but stupid is not one of them.
He will be a far more formidable opponent than Eyman, who, contrary to the preenings of the coalition optimistically self-named “Washington Won’t Discriminate” (Really? Asked any farmworkers lately? Or Afirican-Americans with a family member shot by SPD?), was stopped by Eyman’s own incompetence, not by any liberal opposition. It will take far more than a smug (and white) group of Seattle libs launching a web site and handing out flyers to derail Hutcherson. It will take money — a lot of it. It will take a prolonged statewide media campaign featuring a bipartisan roster of Washington’s political, business, and cultural leaders. And it will take serious outreach into Hutcherson’s religious base of support, speaking with pastors, other religious leaders, and their congregations about, for example, Jesus’ teachings on discrimination, forgiveness, and the judging of others. There’s a lot more of that in the Bible than there is gay-bashing.
Or perhaps we should launch an initiative banning cotton/polyester fabrics, on both religious (Leviticus) and purely aesthetic grounds. Both are just about as improbably random, Biblically speaking, as the demented fundamentalist Christian fixation with same-sex couples.
Goldy — Tim Eyman didn’t STEAL the referendum opportunity this year. Anyone and everyone could have filed a referendum on HB 2661 and gathered signatures. Simply because Eyman filed Referendum Measure 65 on 02/09/2006 (as well as Referendum Measure 63 on 01/31/2006, Referendum Measure 64 and 02/03/2006, and Referendum Measure 66 on 02/16/2006) on HB 2661, this didn’t preclude any other registered voter from filing as many referendum measures on HB 2661 as their hearts desired and plunking down the $5.00 filing fee for each referendum measure (and getting multiple numbers). Hell, if someone had been creative enough, they could have filed at least three more referendum measures on HB 2661 — and gotten Nos. 67, 68, and 69 as well. Given that the object would be to have people vote “NO” in November, guess which number would have been catchiest to have actually put on the ballot?
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/ele.....ndum2.aspx
What happened is that Rev. Ken Hutcherson and other ACTUAL opponents of HB 2661 trusted Eyman to do the job, instead of actually taking responsibility (including doing the hard work) themselves. Basically, whoever files a particular referendum measure has control over it — and if they want to screw it up or outright sabotage it, they can. Eyman had control over Referendum Measure 65, since he filed it. If Hutcherson had filed — let’s say Referendum Measure 69 on this same HB 2661 — then he would have had control over that particular referendum measure number.
So can we make a referendum outlawing tax exemptions for churches that are really just fronts for homophobic cowards like “rev” kennie?
Fuck this piece of shit and every asshole Christian who supports him.
Looks like Tim Eyman has filed 13 “Proposed Initiatives to the Legislature” this year. None of which, of course, he is gathering any signatures on. (Deadline for turning in 224,880 is December 29, 2006.)
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/ele.....ature.aspx
Eyman also filed 21 “Proposed Initiatives to the People” in 2006:
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/ele.....eople.aspx
Add that to the four previously mentioned “Proposed Referendum Measures” filed in 2006, this makes a total of 38 (so far) such filings by Eyman with the Secretary of State during the 2006 calendar year (to date).
Basically, Tim Eyman files about the same percentage of the overall proposed initiatives and referenda filed in any given calendar year, as Roger Rabbit posts comments on any given thread on the political blog that is named after Eyman.
Yup on the Chardonnay crowd leading the fight against these flat earth fucks.
While it is great that many of the affluent of Queen Anne and Capitol Hill back good ideas with lots of money and lots of time,
In my 18 years out here the Chardonnay crowd really haven’t shown any high level political savvy at beating these 1692 Salem shitheads. They stumble into beating the shitheads only cuz the state is so blue, but, the wins are so pathetic and so unconvincing … ugh.
Pathetic wins only embolden the eymans and hutchersons to come outta their flat earth caves.
Goldy — Leviticus 19:19 bans wool/linen combinations in clothing. That part is in-flax-ible, but it says nothing about either cotton or polyester. Seattle does have a specially trained inspection service, so you can make sure your clothing doesn’t combine sheep & flax:
http://chaimyt.tripod.com/shaatnez.html
Reverrind Hutcherrrsin is a fine Christian man who is supportin’ Preznit Bushe and he is also a fine Christian man and Preznit Bush is protectin’ us by bombin’ and surveillin’ and torturin’ and spyin’ and murderin’ and sayin’ “bring it on” and killin’ and buggin’ and prayin’ and ignorin’ the Constertution and the libral meedya should just shut up and let Preznit Bushe pertect us all which he would be doin’ if it weren’t for the libral meedya worryin’ about G.D. pieces of paper like the Constertution and the law and and and and and.
Hutcherson is particularly anti-Christian in that as a blaqck person he personally knows what it’s like to be the hated outsider.
He should think long and hard about the direction he’s leading people. With guys like Eyman in the wings it could easily boomerang on him.
After all, there’s a reason so many black males are imprisoned. They are the ones responsible for 99% of the street crime.
Think about it, Hutcherson. It’s a sub-theme of several Tom Wolfe novels. It’s not that far from the surface.
Just for the record, notice that this post was by Geov, not Goldy.
Roy @ 7
The fact is that Hutcherson is such a narcissist that he doesn’t think people hate him for being black. So, I don’t think he really does understand what it is to be hated for being black, or he just can’t empathize.On top of that, he uses the logic that being gay is a “choice” and that because it’s a “choice” we are not a legitimate minority.
Hutcherson is the worst kind of hypocritical, Christian fuck-up. He’s a narcissist, hateful, self serving and mostly just an asshole.
I wonder if Rev. Kennie is in with Rev. Ted since he’s such a homophobe.
FUCK CHRISTIAN BORN-AGAIN ASSHOLES.
While we’re on the subject of Levitical abominations, the word is used for the situation of ‘men lying with men’ but same term is reserved for shrimp cocktails and clam chowder – whether old-fashioned or Manhattan style.
Leviticus 19:10-12
Also: how many Heaven-approved locusts, katydids, and grasshoppers has the good paster and his flock been eating of late?
Fred Phelps calls himself a “reverend” and “christian” too.
Fucktards one and all, I say.
I’m not too worried about all of this. There is overwhelming support for gay marriage from folks under 30. Support for gay marriage has been increasing slowly, steadily and across almost all demographics for the last 20 years. So, the haters will get to scream and holler, maybe they’ll even get their repeal through, but it wont last. 10 years from now the anti-discrimination laws will be on the books for good and marriage will be for everyone not just straight people.
Why is it that liberals insist everyone be tolerant of all beliefs, except those that they disagree with? I am a repub, if you hadn’t noticed, but I also could give a rats ass about gay marriage. For me I don’t care what you do in the privacy of your own home. But the State does issue marriage certificates, so by any reason the state can and should impose rules for getting one. Since we are of the people, for the people, by the people, the people should have the choice as to whether or not to allow homosexuals get married. In this land, it isn’t illegal to be intolerant or ignorant. Besides, if there was a gay marriage ban, the 9th would overturn it and maybe the SCOUS would pick it up the decision would then be out of everyones hands.
Recalling Goldy’s radio show and satire, now this is satire: (easily recognizable and hits the mark):
“Uppity Negro Falsely Accuses Church of “Racisism”
“He is a dishwasher,” Pastor Deacon Fred told the press on Tuesday. “He cannot be taken seriously.” Church officials claim that Malcolm ‘Joe Fly’ Johnson entertains ‘lofty notions about bein’ somebody’ when he is simply a ‘nobody’ who is not satisfied with his lot in life.
Landover opened parts of its 10.5 billion dollar Christian empire to African Americans over 10 years ago. Pastor Deacon Fred remarked, “These folks are a satisfied people. They attend their own church services and are even allowed in some parts of the Main Sanctuary to do maintenance work. It is just a shame that one uppity colored boy has to go and ruin so much hard work.” Landover maintains a solid relationship with the African American community in Freehold Iowa. Over 25,000 of them are employed and receive paychecks from the Landover Baptist Corporation.
Malcolm Johnson, known among his peers as “What Up Joe Fly” was fired from his dishwashing job at Landover Towers on Monday for speaking out of turn. “Our policies are quite clear.” Pastor stated “Colored help is well aware when they sign their employment agreement that one of our policies is that they are only to speak when spoken to.” Mr. Johnson was asked to leave because his appearance and language caused an elderly white member of our church to have a seizure. “We have lots of folks who give an awful lot of money to this church, most of them have never seen a negro, and most of them don’t ever care to.” Pastor commented. “When this boy came out of the kitchen and bumped into Mr. Larson and said ‘excuse me,’ Mr. Larson fainted dead on the spot.”
Mr. Frank Larson was hospitalized on Monday, and later commented, “I was in fear for my life! I’ve seen TV. I’ve seen what these folks do. I covered my face with my hands and prayed to God in Heaven. I thought it was my last day on Earth.” Mr. Larson is expected to be released from the hospital on Friday.
Pastor Deacon Fred initiated a change in church policy since the dismissal of Malcolm Johnson. “We are not racists here.” Pastor insisted, “We are people of God. We are concerned about offending others just as much as the next person. In turn, we will be asking all colored employees to be kept out of sight when a Major Donor or an elderly person is within earshot. We love our Donors and we love the colored folks, we just don’t like the way they look or act. That is not ‘racisism’ as you so eloquently put it, Mr. Jo Fly Johnson! That is respect!
Unionfireman @14,
There is a difference between being intolerant in say, the comment thread of a post on some blog… and legislating that intolerance into law.
Goldy,
Again though, the people of this country have the right to make the laws. We do this in a variety of ways.In Washington, one way is through the initiative process. Just because you disagree with the law, or have a belief that the law is intolerant, doesn’t mean that the majority of Americans have that same belief. Besides, why is it that you have the absolute moral authority here, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong (And not just here on your blog. Since this is your blog, it is by default your own little universe, you make the laws). But really, why are you right and someone else is wrong? When you deal in absolutes like that, you are no better than the pastor with whom you disagree with. There are many laws that I believe are intolerant, but you might support a number of them. The fact is, having the people decide is a good thing. And letting Ken do this is also a good thing. Maybe it will spark honest debate and open communication on both sides, rather than the old stand by of I am right for what I believe and you are wrong for what you believe.
Hutcherson wants to file an initiative repealing civil rights protection for gays? Let him. Hell, I think it would be helpful to get on the ballot…
– He can’t argue that civil rights = teh gays get MARRIED OH NOES, because the Supremes shot that one down.
– Even Eyman’s successful initiatives have regularly gotten stomped by liberal initiatives on things like the minimum wage and school funding, which leads to my next point…
– Turning out your base works both ways, dude- and WA’s liberal/Democratic base will outweigh Hutcherson’s. WA is one of the least churchgoing states in the US. If these sorts of fundie arguments worked well well statewide, we’d have Governor Ellen Craswell and Seator Linda Smith.
If Arizona can reject a gay marriage initiative (a far more conservative state), repealing civil rights legislation by initiative is dead in the water in this state. I LOVE it when my political opponents fight lost causes in public opinion. Bring it on.
Since the righties think the initiative process is the way to make laws, and since the majority of Washington residents aren’t homophobic right wing theocrats, let’s make some initiatives of our own, banning right wing causes and beliefs. I am contacting my legislative representatives also asking them to look at legislation that curtails the religious right’s influence in state politics.
We need an initiative process leader on our side to counter the Timmy Liemans of the world.
#18 –
Arizona Proposition 107 failed by little more than two full percentage points; respect or love of sodomites had precious little to do the narrow defeat. The proposition overreached: it would have denied any legal status to all unmarried persons in AZ. Domestic Partnerships? No legal status.
It was the youth vote and retirees shacking up together that brought Prop. 107 down.
Had the bill only proposed defining valid marriage as a union between one man and one worman. It would have won, handily.
Why does Hutcherson spend so much time worrying about others’ sins and so little time worrying about his own?
1 Richard, I’m amazed by how you research things down to the most arcane detail. Not busy in your law practice? Do you have a law practice? Or are you living off the land like me?
Richard @3 – Basically, Tim Eyman files about the same percentage of the overall proposed initiatives and referenda filed in any given calendar year, as Roger Rabbit posts comments on any given thread on the political blog that is named after Eyman.
Is Dunsmire paying Eyman by the word?
@3 (continued) — Richard, you really know how to kick Eyman when he’s down, don’t you?
#17 –
How does one mix holy oil and water? How does one “spark honest debate” between a radical man who has ‘faith’ and another non-radical who doesn’t? Ken will run back to his Bible to justify his position as a matter of faith. “The Bible says, The Bible says, The Bible says,” ad nauseum.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about what Ken’s Bible says. Those rules don’t apply to me. I am not a Christian. I don’t believe in any of the Cranky Desert Gods. (Judiasm, Islam, et al.) Nor do believe in Thor, Odin, or Loki, either.( And you can just forget the tooth-fairy, too.)
The former football player is totally free to preach what he wishes, to rule over his family as he sees fit, to control his ‘flock’ as its spiritual shepherd.
This right stops at my secular front door.
Taxpayers in this state who happen to be gay or lesbian pay their share like everyone else. They rightly deserve equity in governmental accommodation and accessibility. Absent this fairness, in their demi-citizen status, perhaps they shouldn’t have to pay full taxes…
9 I think Hutcherson fell in love with the adulation being an NFL player brings, and being a controversial pastor is merely a way for him to keep the attention going. This guy is steeped in self-love.
IS HUTCHERSON ANTI-SEMITIC?
Ken Hutcherson on Mel Gibson’s movie: “KEN HUTCHERSON: I think it’s going to be controversial to those believers who don’t want to admit the suffering that Christ had to go through to pay for our sins. I think it’s going to be controversial to the whole view of the Jewish nation. The truth is that they did push to have Christ crucified. That’s just plain truth… that’s Biblical truth.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Hutcherson
Does Hutcherson support the Iranian president’s call for “reopening the debate” on whether the Holocaust occurred? Just wondering. Some folks think photos like this were staged: http://www.holocaust-history.o.....2-1142.jpg
12 Fred Phelps calls himself a “reverend” and “christian” too.
He also calls himself a “Democrat,” but saying it doesn’t make it so.
Well, what else would a Reverend do during December? It isn’t like there are religious celebrations to get in the way.
Go fer it, Ken. I need another good laugh.
14 unionfireman says …
Roger Rabbit Reply: First of all, your tirade is misdirected because Washington doesn’t have gay marriage and Hutcherson’s initiative has nothing to do with gay marriage. He wants to repeal the anti-discrimination law passed by the 2006 legislature, which bans discrimination against gays in employment, housing, etc.
Second, the Washington Supreme Court ruled this year that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Where is your 9th Circuit ruling and/or SCOTUS case? This is America, and you have every right to never read a newspaper and spout your opinion on subjects you know nothing about. However, we liberals think being an ignorant fuck spewing nonsense is not admirable.
Third, you have every right to be an intolerant, bigoted, ignoramus. But you don’t have a right to not be criticized for it — especially when you come to a liberal blog seeking confrontation with your intellectual betters.
Any questions?
P.S., I thought people had to have some brains to be firemen, but there’s exceptions to very rule.
15 Thank God it’s satire! For a minute, you almost gave ME a seizure! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....ist_Church
ROGER RABBIT RIDDLE
Q: What’s the difference between Antioch Bible Church and Landover Baptist Church?
A: Landover Baptist Church is satire; otherwise, there is no difference.
17 unionfireman says: Again though, the people of this country have the right to make the laws.
Actually, they don’t always. The people don’t have the right to:
Establish a state religion
Restrict the free speech of others
Pass ex post facto laws
Pass redistricting laws that create congressional or legislative districts of unequal population
… and so on. Now, granted, private intolerance is not unconstitutional or even illegal. “Unconstititional” refers to official acts of legislative bodies, given force of law, that either exceed legislative authority or infringe on constitutionally protected rights. The “people” can pass as many unconstitutional initiatives as they want to, but none of them will become law.
17 unionfireman says: Besides, why is it that you have the absolute moral authority here, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong …
First of all, we liberals aren’t saying that you’re not entitled to your religious beliefs, and we realize some churches preach intolerance of gays based on their interpretation of the Bible. You can believe anything you want to, and we won’t interfere with it. But that doesn’t put your beliefs above criticism; and you DON’T have the right to make your religious beliefs the law of the land. We are a country of secular government/private religion. That dichotomy is written into the Constitution, is based on history, and we liberals believe it to be a sound policy. Many of America’s earliest immigrants came here to escape religious persecution in their native lands. If the Framers hadn’t kept government and religion strictly separate, our country’s history would have replicated that of the societies our ancestors fled to escape endless religious strife and warfare. So, no, you may not use the power of government to impose your religious beliefs on the rest of us.
Second, we liberals have our belief system, you have yours. We’re not saying you can’t be a bigot. All we’re saying is bigots can’t practice their bigotry in society to the detriment of others.
Third, apart from our constitutional right to keep your church out of our government and laws, while you may think discriminating against gays is not only morally permissible but biblically sanctioned, I read the same Bible you do and I fail to find anything in it that says God has given you the right to judge others or to punish sinners. My understanding is He reserved those powers to Himself and didn’t delegate any of them to you or your pastor. This being the case, I find NO sanction in YOUR Bible for you taking it upon yourself to either judge, punish, or discriminate against gays.
Fourth, while you are entitled to your religious belief, if your pastor said the Earth is flat, that wouldn’t make it so. The Earth would continue to a sphere anyway. If your pastor says homosexuality is a “lifestyle,” that doesn’t make it so. In fact, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is a natural occurrence in numerous animal species including homo sapiens. So to accept the idea that homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice,” you have to also believe giraffes, dolphins, and hundreds of other species consciously make “lifestyle choices” to have sex with their own gender. See, e.g., http://tinyurl.com/j5suc. Personally, I think that’s a bunch of hooey. Like I said, you’re entitled to your religious belief. But I’m equally entitled to my right to reject faith-based scientific nullification; in other words, I have as much right to choose not to believe that religious faith overrides and nullifies science, as you have to believe that it does. To each his own — but, again, you have NO right to inflict your beliefs on others, or to practice those beliefs in a way that adversely affects others.
Continuing my discussion of the fourth point above, the notion that religionists have NO right to practice their beliefs in a way that adversely affects others isn’t my presonal opinion, it’s established by numerous court cases.
One prominent category of such cases involves whether the state has power to order medical treatment for a minor child over the religious objections of the parents. The answer to that is: An adult has the right to refuse medical treatment; the state’s interest in protecting children from harm overrides the parents’ right to practice their religion if doing so will result in harm to their child; but if the child has, in the court’s opinion, sufficient maturity to make an informed decision the court generally will give precedence to the child’s wishes over those of the state.
It’s also worth noting that the Supreme Court case that says public schools can’t force children to salute the flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance was not brought by liberals or the AClU, but by Jehovah’s Witnesses. The case is West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 87 L. Ed. 1628 (1943).
Unionfireman @ 17:
I can’t stop laughing. You accuse a liberal of having/wanting “absolute moral authority”? For God’s sake (any God you choose) man, pot, kettle, black. For the past 12 years every Republican has cow towed to the MORAL MAJORITY. WTF?
I would suggest putting down the kook-aid, pulling your head out of your ass, clearing the shit from your eyes and ears…….then take a good look at who is trying to RAM THEIR FUCKING BELIEFS DOWN EVERYONE ELSE’S THROAT!!
Some nerve you have to go off on liberals because we ask that instead of legislating who can love and them marry whom, we ask that everyone be allowed to love and marry as they say see fit.
Now for the big question, leaving moral judgment out of it just exactly, Unionfireman, sir, how is two people of the same sex marrying going to negatively affect us all? How is it going to harm your marriage? How is it going to interfere with any of our lives?
You can’t answer without invoking religion or moral beliefs (which are based on your Christian upbringing). I am asking for cold, hard facts.
The bottom line is that the government has no business being in the business of legislating love.
37 I, too, noticed the ironic hypocrisy in fireman’s whining.
I’ve asked this before. Maybe I’ll get an answer this time.
Why should someone get special privileges based on who they fuck? Why should someone who takes it up the ass get preferential treatment?
#37, learn how to read, I said I don’t give a rats ass what people do in their personal life. If gays want the right to marry, then let the state decide. If the state is wrong, then we the people can reverse their decision.
Roger,
Actually, you are right, being a fireman doesn’t require me to be smart. It does require me to risk my life to save others. It requires me to exposed to HIV, HEP C, and MRSA. It requires me to go into a person’s home, when they stub their little toe, and call for a $800 ambulance ride to the hospital at 0300, because they don’t want to drive. And, thanks to liberals, it requires me to work side by side with other “firefighters” who are physically unable to do the job, but were hired based on affirmative action. Tell you what, the next time you see a house fire on the news, ask yourself, if the person I loved the most was trapped on the top floor, who do I want going to rescue them, the person who was hired based on their ability to do the job, or the person who was hired based on their sexual orientation, sex, or ethnicity.
The fact of the matter is that you believe that you are right, and everyone else is wrong. That is the same attitude that the people you despise and berate have. So guess what Roger, those Right Wing, Moral Majority Religious neocons that you hate so much, are just like you. The ignorant have the same right to make laws, as you do. So come on down off that high perch of yours, and realize that you and those you hate, aren’t so different after all.
Redneck, you never seem to read responses, but here goes,
I dont think anyone should get priveleges solely due to ‘who they fuck’. Priveleges like marriage, tax cuts, the right to not get fired and the right to not get kicked out of your rental house should not be reserved exclusively just to those ‘who … fuck’ opposite gender partners.
Now, I personally think that should be extended to everyone, but if you think that these protections should just be removed, I would be willing to listen to your arguements, after all we all know you are a poly sci major and youve probably got an interesting perspective on it.
#39 –
For the same reasons your vaginal insertions (or heterosexual anal pegging does.)
Bill – No, I have a real education.
The fact of the matter is that as soon as some group is able to get themselves designated as a “protected class” then the rules of a meritocracy go out the window. I’ve seen first hand how companies do it. Ending merit as the basis for allocating life’s rewards is a sure way to kill a society.
“Diversity” in its current metastisized form is evil and should be done away with. The last thing we should do is extend it to another group.
So if I say that I’m a lez trapped in a man’s body, will I be able to avail myself of the special preferences?
Would anybody challenge that assertion?
Sure you do, thats what you demonstrated that when you claimed to be able to make a railgun without capacitors, remember?
So, why are you advocating a meritless protected class? What else do you claim awarding special priveledges to heterosexuals is?
Nope, i would say if you are a lez in a mans body you should have the same priveleges as everyone else. The way you hate the vagina, I would seriously doubt that claim too though.
#44 –
Try Mark Driscoll, Ken Hutcherson, Joe Fuiten, Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps – just to name a few…
Moving on.
39 Why should someone get special privileges based on who they fuck? Why should someone who takes it up the ass get preferential treatment?
The only “preferential treatment” gays get is (a) getting assaulted, (b) denied housing and employment, and (c) made into hate objects by kunckledraggers like you. Getting it up the ass may not be much of a thrill, but it’s more thrill than you’ve been getting ever since your dead crack-whore wife left you. Pay your gambling debt, welsher!
39 Oh, and one more thing Redneck — now that we’re up to four (4) — count ’em, FOUR — cracked construction cranes in Bellevue (including the one that killed a guy) … how’s that”invisible hand” working for ya? Do you think if my lawyer buddies sue all these companies into bankruptcy, we won’t need guvmint regulation of cranes? I tend to agree with you. My buddies need the money.
Move along, folks. Nothing to see here. No problem here that trial lawyers can’t take care of.
We don’t need no crane regulation! Trial lawyers will end up owning every building in downtown Bellevue, and owning the companies that built them, and everybody will be happy.
40 “you believe that you are right, and everyone else is wrong”
So? Why should you rightwingers have an exclusive franchise on believing you’re right and everyone else is wrong? Why can’t liberals believe they’re right and everyone else is wrong? If you can do it, why can’t we?
40 (continued) We’re not saying you can’t be a bigot. We’re only saying you can’t hurt other people with your bigotry, or interfere in other people’s lives.
40 P.S., thank you for your service, but being a fireman doesn’t immunize your political opinions from criticism. Everyone one here has immense respect for firefighters and the work they do. But that doesn’t give you a free pass on your political opinions.
43 Well, now we’re getting somewhere. Redneck’s real issue is that he’s pissed off because he got passed over for a minor promotion by someone more qualified than him, and can’t admit he didn’t get the job because he isn’t the bright bulb in the chandelier. Betcha it was a woman. Redneck CAN’T STAND the idea of a woman getting promoted ahead of him! The only way he can rationalize it in his tiny mind is by telling himself she must have been fucking the boss, and if only he had pulled down his undies and bent over for the boss, he would have got the job. It never occurs to him that she got the job because she’s more reliable than he is. I mean, how reliable can he be, when Goldy can’t even count on him to pay a friendly wager over an initiative? I wouldn’t promote him either.
44 What special preferences do lezzies get, Redneck?
The best gays can hope for is to break even … i.e., to get treated the same as everyone else. And that’s all they’ve ever asked for.
Hey Redneck — after finding FOUR cracked construction cranes in Bellevue, can you tell my why we should trust contractors not to drop cranes on our heads?
I am so fucking tired of fireman claiming to deserve some God-like status because they are risking their lives, blah, blah, blah.
Nobody MADE you work at the fire department asshole. From my perspective, you’re a total fucking hypocrite. You right wing turds attack the government and then turn around and threaten to let houses burn if you don’t get a big enough raise every year…from the TAXPAYERS!
If you don’t want the risk, then get your fucking hands out of my pocket asswipe and get off the government tit. Get a real fucking job and quit crying.
Oh, and fireman, the idea that you were alluding to in 14 is called Popular Sovereignty and was best characterized by Stephen Douglas in 1858 during the Lincoln – Douglas debates. You may want to read Mr Douglas’s speech at Freeport. We sorta settled that in the Presidential elections of 1860 (heres a hint, on a list of presidents you will not find the name ‘Stephen Douglas’)
59 Oh, I don’t know if I would go that far, although the irony of a rightwinger enjoying union-negotiated pay, union-negotiated benefits (a lucrative state-run, taxpayer-guaranteed retirement plan not being the least of these), and union-negotiated working conditions is not lost on anyone (except perhaps the rightwinger himself).
Firemen ARE special folks who have volunteered for an especially difficult and dangerous job that few people can (or want to) do. They deserve our respect.
That said, a person’s occupation does not entitle their political opinions to immunity from criticism. Certainly, the rightwingers themselves did not feel that Kerry’s combat tour in Vietnam, Silver Star, and 3 Purple Hearts insulated him from criticism for either (a) his subsequent antiwar activities, or (b) his political positions.
In fact, the Kerry case is a good parallel. Kerry is a legitimate war hero, but the wingers not only criticized his politics, they went so far as to attack the legitimacy of Kerry’s military service by lying about it. If we were to treat “union fireman” exactly the same way Republicans treated Kerry, then we would say
you’re not really a fireman
but if you are a fireman, your job isn’t really hard or dangerous
but even if it is, you’re a slacker and a coward compared to other firemen
See what I mean? And this guy comes here (to a liberal blog) and says, I can come here and post trash-talk about liberals and you can’t criticize me because I’m a heroic fireman.
Well, “union fireman,” you may indeed be a crackerjack fireman and perhaps even a heroic one, and I thank you for your service. But there’s no connection between your political opinion and your occupation or job performance. The one is not a moon orbiting the other; it’s merely a dark asteroid wandering aimlessly through black space, far from the light of the bright comet. If that metaphor is too subtle for you to understand, try this: You’re full of shit anyway.
Actually, I don’t think fireman’s original post @14 was all that unreasonable. I agree with most of it. Whether gay marriage should be a legislative prerogative or constitutional right is debatable. Our state’s highest court having decided it’s a legislative issue, people certainly have a right to take any side they want to. And I would be the LAST rabbit on this blog to argue the state should legislate against bigotry or tell people what to think. The state has a right to regulate behavior to affect othrs, but has no business telling people what to think. That said, fireman’s curriculum vitae does not inform us about the merits of his positions or contribute anything to the debate. The merits of his arguments would be the same if he were a truck driver, ditch digger, or dentist.
Finally, since we apparently have a couple of new posters here (e.g., rob and union fireman), I want to remind everyone of the informal, unofficial HorsesAss.org posting rules:
1. This is a liberal blog.
2. Anyone can post here.
3. There is no censorship.
4. As liberals, our job is to verbally kick the living shit out of you unpatriotic, America-hating, troop-despising, fascist fucks!
5. No mercy for wingnuts.
6. Our terms are unconditional surrender. There will be trials, followed by hangings. (just kidding! ha ha ha … we have a twisted sense of humor on this blog)
7. Flaky klake is a nazi.
Anybody got any questions?
erratum
should read, “The state has a right to regulate behavior that affects others,”
It should also be noted that there are certain self-possessed mega-posters on this blog who think who think this place is all about them…
Roger, I disagree, there are limits to what the ‘will of the people’ can or should pass, as you yourself pointed out in 34.
I think that ultimately, that was one of the major issues during the civil war, can the majority impose a second class citizenship on a specific class? I think the answer was a resounding no.
Interestingly enough, it was the democrat, Stephen Douglas espousing the popular sovereignty idea that propelled republican Abraham Lincoln into the white house.
Roger,
I don’t want you respect or admiration or anything from you as a person. I rambled off on my tirade because of your accusation that I am an exception to the rule, about firemen being smart. Once again, read my post(s). I agree with your rules here, and even state as much. All I am saying is that when you deal in absolutes, you become the very thing you despise. You don’t know my personal politics or beliefs. I haven’t been in a church for religious reasons in 9 years. I am actually a Union official and there are many republican union members in my Union that fight for Labor, but also believe in fiscal responsibility. My entire goal was to point out the hypocrisy of being far left, while bitching about the far right. The truth lies in the middle, and a helluva lot more would be accomplished if the middle was paid attention to on both sides.
I do take issue with people who on one hand want to limit a citizens right to govern (ie initiative) but who also have most likely supported an initiative or two in their past. Fire Unions have used them and believe it or not, good things can come of them.
I am not so new to this blog. I enjoy reading much of what is said here, but generally do not agree with most of it. But the tirades and the language reinforce why I am a republican. I can disagree with you, but will keep the debate civil and not personally attack you for your beliefs. But I guess that isn’t what you want here. You want a forum in which everything you say is right and there is no debate over the issues. You would rather be just like those neocons who hijacked my party and made it into what it is today. Fear not Roger et all, you are heading down the same path that you have been yelling about for sometime. A path that isn’t open to outside opinions or beliefs. Welcome to the far left, where you have more in common with those you despise, than you will ever admit.
#66 –
Truer words… Thank you, Union Fireman.
65 The Civil War wasn’t fought over the slavery issue. It was fought over the secession issue.
66
Item 1 — If you’re a fiscal conservative, how can you be a Republican?
Item 2 — Why do you think I’m “far left?” I certainly don’t consider myself such. I’m a Goldwater Democrat.
Item 3 — In any case, “far left,” “liberal,” and “Democrat” are three different things.
Item 4 — In my case, I’m not hypocritical at all. I’m simply dish back to wingfucks what they dished to us — it’s called “payback.” By imitating their behavior, I give them an opportunity to see what they look like. This isn’t hypocrisy, it’s educational in a constructive way. I’m merely kicking their nuts in an effort to persuade them to stop kicking our nuts. Since they started it, they have to stop first, then I’ll stop.
Item 5 — I differ with Goldy on the question of restricting the initiative and referendum. Goldy isn’t from around here, and doesn’t understand our populist western ways. I like the initative and referendum, and I’m not willing to give it up, even though it gets misused sometimes.
Item 6 — Dressing up the GOP’s lies, corruption, warmongering, hatemongering, lawbreaking, etc., in polite language doesn’t make it respectable.
Item 7 — The Republicans, not us, initiated the ad hominem attacks. We’re merely responding in kind. Why is it okay for them to do it, but it’s not okay for us to do it? Screw that!
Item 8 — All the vulgarity you read on this blog doesn’t begin to compare with the right’s attacks on our patriotism. They can insult my mother, run over my children, and even pump rodenticide into my burrow. But NOBODY questions my patriotism. When the wingnuts did that, all bets were off. Don’t fucking complain to me about “civility.” Republicans started the incivility. Why should they have a monopoly on incivility? Fuck that!
Item 9 — Reading HA is a voluntary activity. If you don’t like what you read here, leave. Bashing unpatriotic, America-hating, lying, stealing, fascist Republicans is what we do here. This isn’t supposed to be a polite debating society. Trolls who come here looking for a fight get what they came for. What’s the problem with that? We’re here to serve, and we aim to please — we wouldn’t want to disappoint them.
67 Any time a wingnut flings around the term “true” or derivatives thereof, watch out! A sure sign of bullshit to come.
67 (continued) So why are you a “former” voter? Does that mean you’re a felon? What were you convicted of? Voting fraud? Child molesting? Or mere garden-variety larceny? Granted, that’s your business, I’m just nosy that’s all.
When do we get to add Gothic people to the can’t discriminate against list? They are born that way and it’s not their fault that some wouldn’t want them working or living in their space.
You’re also arrogant, presumptive, cruel, and a bully – who sadly thinks he’s ‘animal’ cute and funny, where nearly EVERY thought that comes into his head is worthy of a public post to share. It’s interesting that this so-called liberal particularly loves to escalate interaction on this blog to the point of personal attack and invective.
Actually, I think someone should launch an initiative proposing the absolute outlawing of divorce (except for the Biblical allowances)–and then make Hutcherson take a stand on that issue.
Divorce is the issue that reveals guys like Hutcherson to be massive hypocrites. Because they go after gays, crying that it’s all about the children. WTF? If they’re all for the children, why aren’t they campaigning for tougher punishments for married johns, and why aren’t they picketing the homes of prominent divorcees? Divorce and infidelity have substantial impacts on families and the children in them. But, if hypocrites like Hutcherson started going after divorce and infidelity in more than a superficial way, his congregation would exit in droves. Because they’re not interested in that stuff. That would require that they themselves make fundamental changes in their own lives that they are seriously not interested in making. Why go to all that trouble when you can just pick on another group to make you feel better about your own crappy life?
I actually agree with Redneck on this one issue: why should we give preferences to people based on who they sleep with? And that is exactly what we do for married people. We shower on them a whole host of advantages that others don’t have. And it’s all because they qualify for marriage based on the one simple fact that they sleep with a member of the opposite sex. I’d be fine with eliminating, for example, all Social Security survivors’ benefits to spouses so that such benefits aren’t reserved solely for married people. And, while we’re at it, we shouldn’t let husbands or wives into the ICU to visit their sick and dying spouses unless their mother- or father-in-law allow it. Who would have a problem with that, right? And, speaking of divorce, custody should be an all-or-nothing affair, shouldn’t it? I mean, that’s what gays are faced with. If it’s good enough for gays, why shouldn’t it be good enough for marrieds? I mean, like Redneck said, why should we provide preferential treatment for one class of citizens based on who they sleep with?