Open Thread 3/29

An all local open thread, but feel free to talk about whatever you want in the comments.

Puget Sound Energy owns the biggest chunk of the power (and the pollution) coming from the Colstrip coal plant in eastern Montana, which is the second-largest coal-fired power plant west of the Mississippi.

– This is about the greatest picture I’ve ever seen.

City Council member Tim Burgess failed to pass a proposed amendment to the city’s comprehensive plan this morning saying that the city supports homeless encampments only at religious institutions.

– Solid endorsements for DelBene.

Financial fitness day.

Trail updates

– Strangest opening day ever.

Comments

  1. 1

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    I have to go bleach my eyes now – I read the comments following Sharkansky’s piece about Trayvon Martin, alas.

    It has everything – rampant racist id, Fox news talking points, that shit Sharkansky outing a commenter (Tensor) with his full name for the crime of disagreeing. What a bunch of assholes. Even a comment by our own Richard Pope (@16) fellating that little shit Sharkansky.

  2. 3

    The Real Fake Pudge spews:

    Of course, I’ll be voting for the Real Fake McKenna.

    By the way, I’ve copyrighted “Real Fake”. You guys owe me money!

  3. 4

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    This is extremely cool – I love interactive maps, and this one is great. Check it out.

  4. 5

    Steve spews:

    @! Yes, I see that Tensor was outed. I will hope that HA moderators are better than that. If not, then let’s just get on with it and out our trolls. I suggest we start with the self-loathing loon and the goatfucker from Montana.

  5. 6

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    @5
    We are better than that.
    Leave the intimidation and censoring to the goosesteppers over at SoundPolitics.

  6. 7

    No Time for Fascists spews:

    I have not skimmed sound politics site much. Wow. what an unpleasant bunch. Sharkansky comes across as the biggest virtual thug and bully of the lot.
    I like HA better. We let everyone post and then if what they posted is wrong, gleefully explain why.

  7. 9

    Michael spews:

    Great article on Earl Scruggs, who passed away yesterday.

    Earl Scruggs died Wednesday morning at a Nashville hospital. He was 88.

    “It is impossible to overstate the importance of Earl Scruggs to American music,” began one tribute to Earl Scruggs this morning. And that may be an understatement.

    Scruggs perfected a “string-bending, mind-blowing” way of picking a banjo, adopted from players around his hometown of Shelby, North Carolina, and then took it to the world. He and his picking partner, guitarist Lester Flatt, provided the music for both the 1967 film “Bonnie and Clyde” (the getaway song was Foggy Mountain Breakdown) and the title song for the clownish television series The Beverly Hillbillies.
    http://www.dailyyonder.com/thu.....03/29/3839

  8. 10

    Michael spews:

    The city is removing 14 metal bollards along the Burke-Gilman Trail Wednesday and Thursday this week.

    I actually managed to hit a bollard like that while riding my bike once. Hard to do but I’m damn good so I pulled it off. ;-)

  9. 12

    rhp6033 spews:

    # 9: That’s seriously bad news. As a native of East Tennessee, I’ve still got a taste for good bluegrass. A lot of people don’t realize how much rock music had origins in that area, in the late 1960’s young British muscicians with a taste for the blues found themeselves in Nashville learning the ropes from the old studio muscicians there.

    Unfortunately, the Grande ‘Ole Oprey made it’s way to TV about that time, and what became known as the “Nashville Sound” with Porter Wagner, etc. was just, well, silly.

  10. 13

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @1 Look, we all know Sharansky (sic) is an asshole. What kind of motherfucker would inflict his rowdy kid on the other customers in a crowded restaurant and then get a single-mom waitress fired from her job for the “crime” of trying to quiet his kid because he and his wife won’t do their job as parents? Sharansky’s political failings mirror his personal and parental failings: He’s a preening, egotistical, selfish, and self-indulgent asshole. Why even bother to argue with someone like that? As for the comments, what can I say, it’s the usual suspects.

  11. 16

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Trayvon Martin was where he had a right to be, minding his own business, hurting nobody, and he’s dead because an officious meddler with a violent criminal history that includes domestic violence and assaulting a police officer was allowed to have a gun and used it to end a confrontation with a stranger he himself started because he didn’t like the stranger’s looks. This case is a no-brainer. The shooter deserves to go to prison for taking an innocent life. It’s not more complicated than that.

  12. 17

    Santor spews:

    re 1: Well, if Tensor feels threatened by Sharkansky, he should stand his ground in the same way that Zimmerman stood his.

    Giving those rabid wingnut loons the full name of a liberal who disagrees with them is tantamount to calling the person a baby killing abortion doctor.

    Sharkansky’s weilding a sword that has two edges.

  13. 18

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Comment #16 is cross-posted on Sound Politics. We’ll see what reaction it gets over there. I have limited expectations.

  14. 20

    Politically Incorrect spews:

    @13,

    “He’s a preening, egotistical, selfish, and self-indulgent asshole.

    Shit, rodent, you’re also describing yourself with that comment!

  15. 21

    Politically Incorrect spews:

    There has been a lot of talk about subsidies for oil companies. Maybe what’s needed is for the government to get out of the subsidy business entirely – that is, no more farm subsidies for farmers to not grow alfalfa or sweetheart deals for certain businesses and industries. Whenever the government starts meddling in this favoritism shit, the ultimate loser is the poor stiff wanting to put gas in his tank or buy his groceries.

  16. 22

    Deathfrogg spews:

    @ 21

    Maybe we should make it illegal for Corporations to receive any subsidies at all. The vast majority of Farm Subsidies are paid to companies like Monsanto, ADM, Cargill, Bayer, General Electric, California & Hawaiian. General Mills. Post. Kellogg.

    Bain Capital receives about $8 million per year in Farm subsidies. Koch Industries gets around $40 million. Hell, the Saudi Royal Family get around $25 million. Thats all paid for based on “farms” they own in the United States.

    The whole subsidy system is designed specifically to throw small farmers off their land and hand it over to the giant multinationals, totally at taxpayers expense. We’re getting raped.

  17. 23

    spews:

    “I don’t believe we have to treat people we disagree with as an enemy,” Fletcher says in his message. “I’ve fought in a war and I’ve seen the enemy. We don’t have enemies in our political environment here…but in today’s political environment, you’re expected to play the game.”

    I’ve been told by people in the Republican Party that I’m not very good at this…I could care less about playing the game.”

    “It’s time to have a mayor and a city government that reflects our people,” he says. “I’ll be an independent mayor to get things done, and I hope you’ll join me.”

    http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05el.....ent/?tsp=1

  18. 26

    Zotz sez: Mitt Romney is a liar. spews:

    @25: Cute. My daughter’s about the same age and just as goofy (in a good way).

  19. 27

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    I cross-posted my comment @16 on Sound Politics and here are the replies so far:

    “99. RR@97: And George Zimmerman was where he had a right to be, minding his own business (investigating a suspicious person), hurting nobody, and he’s a hunted man (see @KILLZIMMERMAN tweet account, New Panther Party Dead or Alive poster, etc) because officious meddlers with a history of race-baiting that includes the Tawana Brawley incident, that all criticism of Obama is due to his race, the Gates/Cambridge police incident are allowed to rule the airwaves in this country with no consequences for passing off twisted, partial, and out-right false claims as facts. The case is a non-brainer that you can’t rely on the police to handle all crimes and sometimes private citizens have to defend themselves and their property from the lawless in this land instead of just ignoring things that are happening in their neighborhoods. It’s not more complicated than that. Posted by It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Juty at March 29, 2012 02:58 PM”

    “100. Anyone know what peice Zimmerman used? Appeared to be effective at stopping the punk from beating Zimmerman to death. I’d like to know what caliber he used in case some roger rabbit type punk jumps me for peacefully and respectfully looking out for my neighborhood like Zimmerman apparently did. Usually use a .357 magnum snubby myself. Does the job.
    Posted by Amused by Liberals at March 29, 2012 04:52 PM”

    Would anyone like to argue that Sound Politics is anything besides a meetup for orangutans?

  20. 28

    Michael spews:

    @27

    Wow, I knew they were stupid and mean, but that takes the cake.

    George Zimmerman was where he had a right to be, minding his own business

    And I’d have to give that a no. If George Zimmerman had staid in his car, where he had every right to be and followed police directions to not follow Martin none of this would have happened.

    Martin had a fundamental right to travel. Zimmerman had no right to interfere with that,

    Zimmerman used a 9mm from Kel-Tec, not sure which model. I’ve shot Kel-Tec’s. They’re a reliable low-end, pocket, polymer gun. I wasn’t impressed with them a But, you don’t need anything impressive to shoot someone at point blank range.

  21. 29

    Michael spews:

    I’d like to know what caliber he used in case some roger rabbit type punk jumps me for peacefully and respectfully looking out for my neighborhood like Zimmerman apparently did.

    Except Zimmerman didn’t. Martin was minding his own business and walking home from the store.

  22. 32

    Steve spews:

    “some roger rabbit type punk”

    I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Roger so please excuse me while I LMFAO!

  23. 33

    Steve spews:

    “Usually use a .357 magnum snubby myself. Does the job.”

    Two comments into it and somebody is already discussing which gun is best to use to kill Roger.

  24. 34

    Michael spews:

    ““Usually use a .357 magnum snubby myself. Does the job.”

    Apparently he’s a stone cold killa. The sentence implies that he’s used his .357 to kill people before.

    .357 snubbies are hard to shoot, there’s generally no a gutter site for the rear site, they jump like crazy, they’re OMFG loud, and in low light there’s a muzzle flash that messes with your vision. Plus, by virtue of it being a snubby you don’t have a whole lot of barrel to burn powder and build velocity in so your bullets aren’t exactly screaming out of the gun. Better to just load the thing with .38’s.

  25. 35

    Michael spews:

    Oops, a little bad editing on my part.

    .357 snubbies are hard to shoot, there’s generally no or only a gutter site for the rear site, they jump like crazy..

  26. 37

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @34, 35 — They don’t know anything about firearms or combat shooting, either, do they? I noticed that, too.

  27. 38

    The Real Fake Pudge spews:

    Another just-too-fucked-up-in-the-head (un)SP wingnut tough guy trying to take on Roger.

    Just a little hint for you:
    If you are out walking at night and someone follows you, unless you are ready and equipped to kill them, you had best keep moving away and by all means do not attack them . . . BECAUSE THEY MAY BE ARMED and shoot you dead you DUMB-ASS!

    No matter what you and your scummy liberal buddies do or say (or legislate), you will never disarm me or those like me.
    I am conservative so you can take comfort that I will never attack you, steal or harm your stuff. I earn my own so I don’t need yours.

    Nevertheless, AND LISTEN UP REALLY CAREFULLY HERE GENIUS because your life may depend upon it, some liberals like Zimmerman also carry guns and if you attack me or mine, you had best make a better plan than Trayvon did.

    This is obvious to the rest of us; why not you?
    Always had your mommy settle your disputes?
    Grow up.

    Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 30, 2012 10:41 AM

    What are the odds that this infantile wingnut loser fucks goats? I wouldn’t bet against it.

  28. 40

    Michael spews:

    @38
    Wow, that’s seriously deranged. Maybe the guy following you just happens to live on your block? That was the case with Zimmerman and Martin. The kid was just walking home from the store and was shot something like 150 yards from home.

    Nevertheless, AND LISTEN UP REALLY CAREFULLY HERE GENIUS because your life may depend upon it,

    I can’t tell if that’s a threat or more “sheepdog” protector myth nonsense.

  29. 41

    Steve spews:

    Hmm, I suspect that the Real Fake Pudge is a friend of that other guy, Some Republican Dullard.

    @40 Derangement and wingnuttia seem to go hand-in-hand.

  30. 42

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    It doesn’t take much effort to get wingnuts to talk like idiots, does it? It comes naturally to them.

  31. 43

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Also amusing is our little friend Ricky D’s take on trademark law over on SP. He’s too dense to figure out why Trayvon’s parents filed for trademark protection of their son’s name.

  32. 46

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    @38
    That passage contains a very recognizable, very stereotypic style – hard to put finger on.
    Belligerent, gun fitishizing, condescending – but something else – a real embrace of the worst aspects of human nature, a real reveling in the perseption that we’re all out to get each other and we have to arm ourselves to the teeth, and could gun one another down on the street at any time.
    It’s extraordinarily jouvenile and violent, yet has a veneer of ‘this is how the world is, get used to it’ conventional wisdom.

    I’m reminded of the 991 tape that Lawrence O’Donnell played last night – some guy in Texas just itching to go outside and shoot the guys robbing his neighbor’s house – which he did despite the 911 operator telling him not to – it was totally clear that he was ecstatic about using his shotgun on these two theives – and he killed both of them. Of course, he was not charged, because he ‘feared for his life’.

    There are dangerous, profoundly evil elements in our society – ALEC, the NRA, the Kochs – who are really good at stoking the id of too many of our fellow citizens who are only too happy to be unleased to goosestep/shoot people of color.

  33. 47

    rhp6033 spews:

    The USP blog certainly has its trolls that like to distort the facts – like saying that Zimmerman was minding his own business and following Williams – which in any other place would be called stalking.

    But it’s not surprising. A recent video making the rounds has taken audio from the U.S. Supreme Court’s arguments and argued that even the attorney defending the law can’t do so (pauses, mumbles, etc.). But the problem is, it’s not the real audio. It’s a “mash-up” taking little more than a short pause and a drink of water, repeated multiple times, to make it appear to be quite different than the real events.

    The federal courts used to prohibit audio recording, have they stopped that now? If so, I can see now why they didn’t like the idea, as open discussion and questions would be substituted for political purposes for the court’s actual decision and printed opinions.

  34. 48

    Steve spews:

    Ricky D is over there making up shit about a witness seeing Trayvon banging Zimmerman’s head against the concrete sidewalk.

    Making shit up. Wingnuts do that because that’s all they have left, as with Zimmerman’s father’s bullshit about our president spewing hate.

  35. 49

    Steve spews:

    @46 ‘this is how the world is, get used to it’

    Fucktards like that asswipe have no fucking clue about what this world is about. I’ve grown colder with each lie I hear out of those bastards. I’m just about fed up with their bullshit.

    Do we have that law here? I only ask because my friend Mr. Detonics and I are both feeling a bit threatened by the crazy wingnuts over at (un)SP.*

    *Heh. Just kidding. Wingnut humor.

  36. 52

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @46 “Do we have that law here?”

    Are you kidding? This isn’t Florida. If Zimmerman pulled his shit here, we wouldn’t need a grand jury, our Republican prosecutor would charge him on a routine information.

    “my friend Mr. Detonics”

    You have more sense than that numbskull with the .357 snubby. Assuming, of course, your Detonics is a .45 (did Detonics make any other kind?).

  37. 54

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    @52
    Should we organize an outing to a local range for a “Liberals with Guns” target practice?

  38. 55

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @54 Heh — we could hold a “Shooting Liberally” there with a door prize for the tightest group. No rabbit silhouettes, please.

  39. 56

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Keith Olberman Fired

    Current TV abruptly fired Keith Olberman yesterday over a contract dispute. The temperamental Olberman reportedly also had repeatedly clashed with his bosses at the cable network. His show will be taken over by Eliot Spitzer.

  40. 58

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Speaking of financial fitness, it’s simple: Consume less, own more, owe nothing.

    In an age when even doctors and lawyers can be replaced by automation, we’re approaching a time when capital will not only displace, but will replace, labor — all labor.

    “We operate in an economic system that rewards production and marginalizes those unable to find work. Combine that reality with exponentially improving technology, and you have all you need to put capital on top of labor for good. ”

    http://www.dailyfinance.com/20.....nt-crisis/

    The obvious solution to this looming employment crisis is to own capital, so you’d better accumulate all the capital you can, while you’ve still got a job. Because your job isn’t going to last.

  41. 60

    Michael spews:

    Zimmerman assaulted a cop, he assaulted his wife, he made how many (40 some?) nuisance calls to 911? And the righty’s are putting this guy up on a pedestal?

    Fucking insane.

  42. 62

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @60 I figured out 45 years ago that righties are on the wrong side of everything, every time, on every issue, which is why I’m not a Republican anymore.

  43. 63

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    $640 Million Mega Millions Update

    Maryland lottery officials say a winning ticket to the largest public lottery jackpot of all time was sold in their state. The Maryland Lottery’s initial news release said it was one of “several” winning tickets sold nationwide, but the agency couldn’t confirm to news media that any others exist. Maryland’s announcement preceded by several hours the official release of nationwide results.

  44. 64

    spews:

    98. Liberal Scientist slut spews:
    For example, WTF does this even mean:

    To continue a disagreement as to the need for a supermajority, after going through and understanding the mathematical reasons in the above link, is to argue that it would make perfect sense to allow Idaho residents to vote with us irt raising our WA state sales tax with a “simple” majority vote.

    1) ROFLOL… If you can’t understand that simple sentence with an associated thought (broken by comas) then you shouldn’t write drivel like the following block quote. Especially after writing: “your posts are too wordy, and your syntax/writing skills are lacking, making all those words a terribly challenging exercise to wade through”. Seriously, ROFLOL…

    Your thinking displays an all too familiar, um…adolescent?…un-nuanced?…concrete?…superficiality that I have come to associate with the libertarians. You engage, in a very masturbatory way, a very first-order analysis of the most immediately obvious relationships. At the heart of your writing is a profound denial of community, of the fact that we citizens are all, at a fundamental level, equal, and that we’re all in this together.

    You must have done poorly and suffered a lot of repressed shredding in class (either that or forgot a lot since then)…

    more slut speak: You need to be coherent, and concise. Your posts are full of this sort of unedited word salad.

    2) Unfortunately (especially around here) short & concise replies are taken out of context/segmented/skipped/twisted/etc. and require ad nauseam back and forth replies of the same basic concepts due to people’s unwillingness to accept facts & truths they’re uncomfortable with.

    A lengthier reply preempts many of those ridiculous tactics but you’re right: it requires someone to “READ, THINK, & use COMMON SENSE” rather than simply skim the answer with no intent of actually trying to understand it… It’s too bad so many of you don’t apply those basic concepts. If you did, the replies could be much shorter… ;-)

    3) Btw, yoiur gay, womens, etc. type of arguments are answered in this 3/15 OT reply (@94, 2-7)
    Try not to skim it… Maybe your old teacher could help you with it?

  45. 65

    spews:

    @100 Roger Rabbit spews:
    @98 Don’t confuse him with logic. Superficiality is what these people do, because they’re incapable of thinking beyond the end of their noses.

    People with no valid argument (and crackerjack lawyers) tend to use silly insults in place of sound reason and common sense. Especially when they’re wrong. It’s sad to see you consistently prove that disappointing reality of many lawyers (at least the lower quality ones)…

  46. 66

    spews:

    @102. YLB spews:
    Dave is obnoxious. He wants to troll.
    I could be wrong about his motivations.
    To prove himself I suggested he try his “reasoning” act at (un)soundpolitics. So far I’ve seen nothing on that.
    Speaks volumes to me.

    “Troll”- Already established as meaning “to have concepts & facts that we disagree with“. We already ascertained your lack of debate ability. It’s funny to see you “pipe up” when your reinforcements are around (like a small dog that gets “courage” when his bigger “pals” are around. LOL… I’m sure a lot of things “speak volumes” to someone like you because even basic concepts are over your head.

  47. 69

    spews:

    To be clear,
    @65 is pointing out the fact that when people like RR are attempting to argue an actual subject (voting, FL shooting, politics, etc) they fall back on silly insults.

    There’s no question that my post was returning insults back to him (what this site seems to like doing more than actually discussing). The difference (for those of you not able to figure it out) is that I wasn’t in the middle of a discussion with RR irt ANY particular subject (like the ones listed above). He chose to randomly jump into the middle of a discussion for no reason other than to spew meaningless insults/accusations (like a child wanting to be part of something).

    If he was a “lawyer” it must have been civil law because, based on his opinionated assumptions irt the Zimmerman case, he doesn’t know a lot about criminal law (perhaps not even as much as boyscout?). God help anyone he would’ve represented as a criminal lawyer (state OR defendant)…

  48. 70

    Michael spews:

    BTW it’s predictably funny that those of you controlling this site “conveniently choose” when to close a thread for further comments… ROFLOL!!!…

    I’m pretty sure that’s an automated feature.

  49. 71

    Michael spews:

    @69
    Some of us can handle acting one way in one environment and another way in another environment. For example, I’d never say that someone is being a complete cunthammer at a city council meeting which is how you’ve behaved since showing up on here. So yeah, we engage in name calling on here, but in real life, not so much.

    Look, this a partizan, left wing site that’s comment threads are called a sewer. It’s set up for name calling by design. We do more than just name calling on here, but really it’s a place to blow off steam and have a laugh at the right side of the political spectrum’s expense.

    And you can’t get that through your head, why? Because you’re a complete cunthammer, of course.

  50. 72

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    It’s too bad so many of you don’t apply those basic concepts. If you did, the replies could be much shorter… ;-)

    Yeah, we’re all morans here. You should probably stop casting pearls before us swine and take your insightful, subtle, penetrating analysis elsewhere.

  51. 73

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    Because you’re a complete cunthammer, of course.

    Cunthammer. I’ve never heard that term of derision before. Nice, I’ll have to use that sometime.

  52. 74

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    70. Michael spews:

    BTW it’s predictably funny that those of you controlling this site “conveniently choose” when to close a thread for further comments… ROFLOL!!!…

    I’m pretty sure that’s an automated feature.

    I looked at the posts immediately before and after the one Dave is whining about – and they’re closed also. I think you’re right, Michael, that it’s likely automatic – I’ve never noticed before, but I’ve never had a stick up my ass like Dave, and had to insist that everyone go back and keep discussing my precious thoughts in previous threads.

  53. 78

    Michael spews:

    @76
    Dave’s not taking anyone or anything apart he’s simply taking his view of the world and his assumptions and saying that anything that doesn’t fit into his format is wrong.

  54. 80

    Michael spews:

    @79

    I’ve been wrong before. Puddy and Mr. Cynical both proved me wrong on a few things and I learned a few things from them. It’s not that we’re always right.

  55. 82

    spews:

    “Troll”- Already established as meaning “to have concepts & facts that we disagree with“. We already ascertained your lack of debate ability.

    LOL! Deflect, deflect.. I’ll be happy to debate you Dave.. First prove you’re not a troll by “debating” at (un)soundpolitics.com.. Regulars here have participated in their comment threads many times..

    Why not you? We’ll be watching Dave..

  56. 84

    The 5% spews:

    Why not you? We’ll be watching Dave..

    04/01/2012 AT 2:30 PM

    Yes, you will be watching because you have no life outside of HA and blogs about blogs.

    psycho….

  57. 85

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    I am completely enjoying seeing Dave take this place apart.

    Spare me.

    Dave can’t write.
    After you wade through the weeds of his run on posts, or visit his website (yes, I have), you realize that he keeps saying the same things over and over.

    He’s very proud of his independent-ness, and thinks he’s pissing off ‘both sides’. Unfortunately, he seems to be a rather pedestrian glibertarian, and as such is one of the cadre of ‘useful idiots’ that support loons like Ron Paul.
    His posts are rehashings, and re-rehashings, of his wordy and nearly indecipherable masturbatory ramblings from his website.
    The topic that he seems to focus on here is his notion that property tax measures require a supermajority to pass. He devotes significant energy to stroking the notion that control of such tax policy should rest exclusively with property owners. His ‘idea’ that a 60% supermajority should be necessary rests on supposition regarding how many non-property owners would vote for taxing others, since they would not pay this tax (at least not directly, as with most glibertarians, he seems not able to see beyond either the end of his nose, or to understand higher-order relationships, or to have the emotional maturity beyond an adolescent). His plan explicitly endeavors to disenfranchise the non-property owners by diluting their votes.

    Again, it’s basic mathematics that shows why a supermajority vote is required in order to simply even out the vote and account for the addition of a group of voters who don’t have to pay for the very thing they’re voting for.

    He is profoundly undemocratic, and is asserting retread libertarian ideas, all dressed up in the tattered rags of his verbose, circular and unconvincing ‘logic’.

    He is a crackpot desperately demanding “Pay attention to me!!” – tiresome.

  58. 88

    spews:

    87. YLB spews:
    Heh. Next non-sequitur coming from Dave in 5,4,3,2…

    LOL. Unfortunately (for you) “trying” to sound smart doesn’t work because you always come out looking like a buffoonish court jester. You were truly doing better when you claimed (about 4-5 times) that you weren’t going to reply to “big bad Dave”… You should go try debating with elementary school children so you’ll at least have a better chance (albeit slightly better)… Although, it “IS FUNNY” to watch you flop around like a fish out of water… ROFLOL!!!…

  59. 89

    Steve spews:

    I agree that Dave’s comments could be written better. Comments written with long sentences in a condescending attitude require a little something extra. I think comments are like a song in that you need to keep it interesting from beginning to end. If it runs on long without interest it can be a bore, and Dave’s comments do bore me. But so did pre-electric Dylan.

    I imgagine that, if perhaps Max were to tutor him, it’s possible that Dave might learn to post more interesting comments that get straight to the point.

  60. 90

    spews:

    71. Michael: 1) So yeah, we engage in name calling on here, but in real life, not so much.
    2) 78. Michael: he’s simply taking his view of the world and his assumptions and saying that anything that doesn’t fit into his format is wrong.

    1) Unfortunately, behavior always relate back to the person’e true character and you’rs is severely lacking… Sad for you and any kids you hopefully did not raise with those pathetic excuses for behavior. Just another example of of the low quality of people who seem to dominate this site…

    2) Wrong. Mine are based on actual facts that I’ve backed up. Most of you simply won’t accept the truth when it’s inconvenient and disadvantageous for you to do so. You then defend your refusal to accept the truth with illogical arguments.

    Aside from that, I’ve pointed out the flaw in rushing to judgement on issues like the Zimmerman case (which most of you continue to do). All you “experts” have him guilty and only post anti-Zimmerman items to further show your extremely biased and irrational views.

    72. Liberal Slut:

    It’s too bad so many of you don’t apply those basic concepts. If you did, the replies could be much shorter… ;-)

    Yeah, we’re all morans here..

    3) Admitting it is the first step. Congratulation.

    78. Michael spews:
    @76
    Dave’s not taking anyone or anything apart he’s simply taking his view of the world and his assumptions and saying that anything that doesn’t fit into his format is wrong.

    4) Omg, LOL… You people definitely need to look in the mirror! Wow, that was hysterical. Go on comedy tour where your meaningless ideas don’t matter and people can just laugh at (um…”with” you). LOL

    @85. Liberal slut
    5) The one accurate part of that entire blathering post:

    Again, it’s basic mathematics that shows why a supermajority vote is required in order to simply even out the vote and account for the addition of a group of voters who don’t have to pay for the very thing they’re voting for.

    Take it to any “unbiased” math professor and they’ll explain the concept to you (if they can dumb it down enough for you that is)… Seing as though you “switched” arguments after losing the last one you brought up I’m glad to see you understood @64 #3.

    6) You people are seriously hilarious to watch. You rarely make any actual point about anything but watching you try is sort of like watching a 2yr old try to graduate from “Baby Speak” to a level of “actual thinking”. Eventually, with a lot more work, you may get there. You’re right, that’s a little OVERLY optimistic isn’t it?…

    Btw, this post was what’s know as being efficient. It’s a little long for some of your tiny attention spans but it answers many people at once. Do you understand how that works liberal slut or does someone need to dumb it down for you?

    89. Steve spews:
    I agree that Dave’s comments could be written better. Comments written with long sentences in a condescending attitude require a little something extra. I think comments are like a song in that you need to keep it interesting from beginning to end. If it runs on long without interest it can be a bore, and Dave’s comments do bore me. But so did pre-electric Dylan.

    7) I agree with Steve that nobody here is an English grammar expert (myself included). If the 1,000 most successful Americans were given a test on the usage rules of the English language you’d be lucky to find 5 that were any more proficient than the “average” person here. That doesn’t include the outright gibberish that some people spew out.

    –It still seems better to have longer posts that pre-answer potential counter Q’s others are likely to ask (as opposed to short 1-3 sentence answers that are open to all sorts of misunderstandings and back-and-forth replies of repeated arguments). Additionally, half of my posts are often block quotes (like this one).

    Btw, I’ll take the Dylan comparison :-)

  61. 91

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @90 You’re deluding yourself if you believe what you do on this blog constitutes “thinking.”

  62. 93

    No Time for Fascists spews:

    Heh. Next non-sequitur coming from Dave in 5,4,3,2
    ..and it will have 35 points and 183 sub sections, with random phrases bolded, 44 links and will go on for 27 screens, without a decipherable point or summary.

  63. 96

    No Time for Fascists spews:

    Take it to any “unbiased” math professor…
    Nice logic, any math professor who doesn’t agree with him, is biased? No possibility that he could be wrong?

  64. 97

    Michael spews:

    78. Michael spews:
    @76
    Dave’s not taking anyone or anything apart he’s simply taking his view of the world and his assumptions and saying that anything that doesn’t fit into his format is wrong.

    4) Omg, LOL… You people definitely need to look in the mirror! Wow, that was hysterical. Go on comedy tour where your meaningless ideas don’t matter and people can just laugh at (um…”with” you). LOL

    Or maybe I’ll go work on political campaigns which have a high % of winning. See, I’m capable of doing the one thing on here and then putting on a suit and acting in a different way in a different environment.

    I’ve also pointed out that I’ve been wrong before and have learned things from people of all political stripe on this site. I’m not saying that your beliefs don’t fit my beliefs therefore your wrong.

    I have had a good laugh at your inability to figure out that the format of this site is biased to the left and one that engages in backroom brawling. Complaining about bias and salty language on HA is like going into a strip club and complaining about all the naked ladies.

  65. 98

    Michael spews:

    pre-answer potential counter Q’s

    ‘Cause he’s so freaking brilliant that he knows what people are going to think and write.

  66. 99

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    Just another example of of the low quality of people who seem to dominate this site…

    Then just spare us your exalted presence, and go away.

    Mine are based on actual facts that I’ve backed up.

    FACTS? I haven’t run into one of those in any of your meandering blather.

    Most of you simply won’t accept the truth

    Oh, and you’re here to bring us the truth? Oh, how we were waiting for you. Not.
    HAHAHAHAHHA

    I’ll stop there – you’ve descended into self parody.

    Go away.

  67. 100

    No Time for Fascists spews:

    Again, it’s basic mathematics that shows why a supermajority vote is required in order to simply even out the vote and account for the addition of a group of voters who don’t have to pay for the very thing they’re voting for.

    If there was one single landowner who own ALL the land in the election area and everyone else was renters, would that person be the only person who could vote on property tax questions to even out the vote?

  68. 101

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    93. No Time for Fascists spews:

    Heh. Next non-sequitur coming from Dave in 5,4,3,2
    ..and it will have 35 points and 183 sub sections, with random phrases bolded, 44 links and will go on for 27 screens, without a decipherable point or summary.

    Indeed, indeed. Well put.

  69. 102

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    If there was one single landowner who own ALL the land in the election area and everyone else was renters, would that person be the only person who could vote on property tax questions to even out the vote?

    I think that’s exactly the point. Dave is a fool, a glibertarian who doesn’t want the ‘wrong’ people getting his tax dollars, and so has constructed what he construes is a subtle and sublime system that merely reinforces his prejudices. The end result of such a subversion of democracy is neofeudalism – whether he realizes it or not.

  70. 103

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    But you cannot take Dave’s FREEDOM!!! (cue blue painted Braveheart faces…)

  71. 104

    spews:

    Game of Thrones was pretty cool tonight. Those Lannisters (excepting Tyrion to some degree) are blood-thirsty, power mad and pin-headed. Must be all the inbreeding.

    Speaking of pinheads. Is Dave still lurking?

  72. 105

    spews:

    91. Roger Rabbit spews:
    @90 You’re deluding yourself if you believe what you do on this blog constitutes “thinking.”

    1) That really might mean something if it was coming from someone other than a crackerjack lawyer (as you’ve unfortunately proven yourself to be).

    96. No Time for Fascists spews:
    Take it to any “unbiased” math professor…
    Nice logic, any math professor who doesn’t agree with him, is biased? No possibility that he could be wrong?

    2) As in not a right wing or left wing (you people) fanatic. I.e. an independent and critical thinker (again, unlike most of you on this middle school clique site).

    98. Michael spews:
    pre-answer potential counter Q’s
    ‘Cause he’s so freaking brilliant that he knows what people are going to think and write.

    3) For average people it’s quite easy to do. Although, it involves looking at something from the other person’s point of view so it makes sense that you and most of the other people on HA see it as something requiring “brilliance”. Thanks for the compliment as to my brilliance.

    99. Liberal Slut: Oh, and you’re here to bring us the truth? Oh, how we were waiting for you. Not. HAHAHAHAHHA
    I’ll stop there – you’ve descended into self parody.
    Go away.

    4) It would be nice to assume that a site (left or right wing) would want to encourage & engage in different viewpoints. Sluts comment is certainly the exact opposite mentality and more along the lines of “if you don’t agree with us would you please leave so we can agree with each other some more?…because we just DON’T want to engage in conversation that we don’t agree with.

    Unfortunately, most ppl on this site (like slut) have behaved more like a bunch of middle-school girls in a clique that just want to agree with each other on everything and “self glorify” one another so they can each feel special and correct because “everyone” agrees with them (at least everyone in their clique).

    5) More Slut Speak:
    @101- Wow! That must have truly taken a lot of your intellectual power to come up with that wisdom. OMG… ROFLOL!!!….

    @102- Read this thread (post38 on). All your baseless Q’s were brought up there. Obviously you won’t because that would take time and a willingness to look objectively at a topic (which you’re unable to do because you want to stay “comfortable in your middle school clique where everyone agrees…) Btw, I’ve repeatedly shown (in that link) that your completely wrong. Again, go find a math professor (maybe your English teachers friend?) See reply to Fascists as well.

    @103- LOL. That was a great movie though. Rob Roy is another good one.

  73. 106

    spews:

    97. Michael spews:
    Or maybe I’ll go work on political campaigns which have a high % of winning

    So you like making a lot of phone calls huh? No wait, maybe you’re the “campaign strategist”…NOT! ROFLOL!…

  74. 107

    spews:

    @100 Fascist-

    Wow, your memory is really failing (tell your Dr.) because I’ve already answered that Q 2-3 times and you’ve always deflected onto some tangent. It’s also true that I referred to 2 separate (and much more realistic) examples that you’ve consistently “forgotten” to address (you people do that a lot around here). One had to do with showing it’s NOT just about a supermajority. I talked about times when a “MINORITY” vote would actually be necessary to equalize a vote as well (but you don’t like to talk about that).

    The other was this: If a vote to raise the WA state sales tax to 12% was being conducted and ID/OR voters within 50 miles of our border were allowed to vote. That would be introducing a subset of voters who could vote for a tax they didn’t have to pay for, but would in fact benefit from as more people crossed the borders to make purchases. Simple mathematics explains how making that vote a supermajority would at least account (to a degree) for those “unaffected voters” from the neighboring states who would tend to vote “yes” in high numbers. It would, in fact, necessitate a supermajority vote and is the exact same situation as when non property tax payers are allowed to vote for property tax increases on “other people” that they themselves do not pay.

    Your argument would support this scenario being perfectly reasonable with a simple majority vote! Mine shows it to be the same sort of ridiculousness that a property levy is without at least making it a supermajority to account for those ID/OR voters (non property owners in the case of a levy)… You don’t like to talk about that either…

  75. 108

    spews:

    Oh YLB… You’re still the buffoonish court jester of the group. I actually feel badly for you because being in the bottom 5% of intellect around here is really saying something (in a bad way). The little stepbrother of the group that just wants to be a big boy. Keep watching Thrones so you can live vicariously through someone else.

    At least you’re learning your numbers 5,4,3,2… Fyi, 1 comes next. Start working up to 1000 then you can move to addition, subtraction, negative numbers, and “possibly” multiplication. Actually, multiplication may be a few yrs off for you. Keep riding coattails though (it’s the only way you can possible feel “supported”.

  76. 109

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    Ahem.
    Dave, if you want to thrive here and become an esteemed and established member of the posting community, I would suggest you:

    1. Stop posting the exact same thing over and over. For example, your ‘example’ supporting your assertions regarding supermajorities that involves voters in neighboring states has been posted and linked to multiple times, both here on this site (above and other threads) and to your blog site (where it’s linked to another of your blogs.)
    You have essentially posted portions of your blog in their entirety here, over and over, verbatim.

    You cannot convince people, intelligent, educated, politically and socially aware people like those that populate this site (trolls excluded), by shouting louder and louder the same damn thing over and over. Makes you look like your stomping your feet having a tantrum. Doesn’t work.

    2. (Related to 1) You cannot convince people of the astuteness or propriety of your ideas if those ideas are DUMB. The mindless, incessant repetition noted in 1 above only serves to reinforce the impressions that, first, you’re a shallow thinker, and second, have no persuasive skills beyond repeating, verbatim and ad nauseam, the glorious words you’ve deigned to share with the world on your website.

    Your ideas regarding mechanisms of voting on property tax measures are deeply flawed in a number of ways.
    First, you state explicitly that the whole premise rests on the goal of effectively disenfranchising a large portion of the electorate, people you condescend to as voting for something

    “they benefit from” yet “don’t have to pay for”.

    This is typical libertarian/property-rights/adolescent “you can’t take my stuff” selfishness.
    What next? Shall Harborview be paid for only by billing the people who use it? Same with buses, I suspect. Public schools? Only people with children pay for them? Who gets to vote for deciding how these institutions be governed/paid for?
    You’re trying to fragment society along lines you value and into factions you identify with or against. It’s fairly transparent, and it’s really no different than supermajority requirements elsewhere that have played havoc with the ability to govern, like in California, where a minority mob (mostly of pasty white republican whackos) can hold the whole state hostage.
    Second, you pull the 60% threshold out of your butt. Roger noted this elsewhere – he asked why 60? Why not 59.38274559327? (or numbers to that effect). His point being, your 60% is arbitrary. Now, you claim incontrovertible numerological certainty, or “mathematically indisputable fact”, as you put it, but your plan rests on assumptions regarding the proportion of non-property owners, and their tendency to “vote for something “they benefit from” yet “don’t have to pay for”” (Pardon the double quotes, I left intact your nonsensical quotation marks from your blog post.) You are tying a voting mechanism to biased projections as to how you think people will vote, in order to manipulate the outcome of that vote. And the numbers you use, in any case, are made-up guesstimates!
    It’s insanely nondemocratic.
    That is not how we do things in this country.

    Finally, we as a people can tax any damn thing we want. As a democracy, we can formulate and shape the government, and society, to fit our needs.
    Universal suffrage for adults means that everyone gets an equal say. Now, that is under assault, and always has been, and your proposals are nothing more than a fairly ham-handed attempt to wrest power and control from the people and give it to…whom? The landowners? Been there, done that.
    If we, the citizenry, want to tax wealth, or property, or income, or cars, or financial transactions, or anything – WE CAN. It’s how things work in a democracy. Don’t like it – convince people that your ideas are better, or leave.
    (Could we please, please, PLEASE make Alabama an independent nation for all the libertarians? Mississippi could be for the racists, and they can hook up if they like)
    The point is, we can formulate any tax policy and mechanism for funding the activities of government, and shape what those activities are, as a people, through democratic means. You are trying to carve out a special power for landowners, and are in effect undermining the society and fueling oligarchy by doing so. Why not just come out and say it?

    3. Stop insulting people. Yes, we do that a lot here, it’s a rough and tumble kind of place, and we’re tolerant of such behavior, even encouraging, and of potty mouths (much unlike the censorious and delicate flowers over at Stefan’s suckly little blog – assholes).

    However – like thinking deep thoughts and formulating novel policy proposals – you’re not very good at it. Calling people a clique of girls is both ineffective and sexist, dipshit. Commenting, “NOT ROFLOL” after a blockquote is indeed not the height of insightful repartee. I could go on.

    So, stick to…well, it’s not clear what you should stick to, as whatever we’ve seen you do here has failed. Maybe you could try something that doesn’t involve words.

  77. 112

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    I wonder if that chick with the bloody tee-shirt in the sidebar ad just came home from a date with George Zimmerman? Just curious …

  78. 113

    spews:

    Slut-
    Ahem. Come on, seriously…?

    1) So you’re “argument” is that repeating something makes it incorrect or is somehow inappropriate? LOL Please use some common sense. Please… It obviously needs to be repeated multiple times when people, LIKE YOU, consistently bring up comments that I’ve already explained.

    “If” people LIKE YOU chose to actually review the threads (that I provided links to) then people like YOU wouldn’t post so many repititious Q’s that I have to answer AGAIN, and AGAIN…(with the same information because it’s still valid) again and again…

    We better make sure not to let people use E=MC2 too often because that would make it look like a tantrum and wouldn’t help convince the “intelligent, educated, politically and socially aware people like those that populate this site” (cough, cough) anyway correct? OGM, LOL!

    2) Additionally, if I didn’t say the exact same things here as I do other places I’d be what political zealots like you call a flip flopper but you’d argue it both ways wouldn’t you?… I can see it now: Slut says “that stupid Dave isn’t even consistent. His blog doesn’t match with what he says here. He’s a flip flopper…!” You want it both ways don’t you?

    This is typical libertarian/property-rights/adolescent “you can’t take my stuff” selfishness.
    What next?…Public schools? Only people with children pay for them?

    3) Your argument states selfishness is wrong and I completely agree! However, you then advocate for that EXACT thing (selfishness). How is it NOT SELFISH for someone to say: “Only people with property should pay my school’s levy that I get to vote yes for??? Your thought process irt selfishness goes to MY very argument and you STILL can’t see it…

    You provide a perfect demonstration of being stuck in the conundrum of deciding to favor something you know is unjust (selfish) simply because it provides personal benefit vs. the alternative of accepting the TRUTH that it’s a selfish circumstance that needs changed (even though fixing the selfish aspect would be at the expense of the personal benefit/gain of getting $ from property owners).

    4) The rest of your INCORRECT statements irt supermajority votes have been covered in the thread you choose not to read. I can only provide the truth, I can’t make you accept it (especially when it’s inconvenient, and against your selfish desires, for you to do so)…

  79. 114

    spews:

    5) Btw, I also showed why a minority would be necessary in certain situations iot even a vote out as well. I’ve noticed that you people “conveniently overlook” those points (which add to the basic mathematics of the situation that you still need help with)

    You also conveniently don’t reply to the sales tax vote example because it, once again, goes against your opinions:
    If a vote to raise the WA state sales tax to 12% was being conducted and ID/OR voters within 50 miles of our border were allowed to vote. That would be introducing a subset of voters who could vote for a tax they didn’t have to pay for, but would in fact benefit from as more people crossed the borders to make purchases.

    Simple mathematics (explained/linked to numerous times) shows how making that vote a supermajority would at least account (to a degree) for those “unaffected voters” from the neighboring states who would tend to vote “yes” in high numbers. It would, in fact, necessitate a supermajority vote and is the exact same situation as when non property tax payers are allowed to vote for property tax increases on “other people” that they themselves do not pay.

    –- Your “dumb” argument would support this scenario being perfectly reasonable with a simple majority vote! Mine shows it to be the same sort of ridiculousness that a property levy is without at least making it a supermajority to account for those ID/OR voters (non property owners in the case of a levy).

    2. (Related to 1) You cannot convince people of the astuteness or propriety of your ideas if those ideas are DUMB.

    6) You actually “almost” had it right. More to the point would be: I can’t convince DUMB people (like slut and others) of ideas (no matter how astute they are) because dumb people are closed minded to anything that goes against their middle-school girls cliques…

    7) Mike (and now you) has repeatedly said insults are the norm around here so you shouldn’t have any problem with me one. Especially when it’s actually more of a perfectly appropriate analogy than an insult. Like pointing out your middle-school girl clique that just wants to agree with each other on everything and “self glorify” one another so they can each feel special and correct because “everyone” agrees with them (at least everyone in their clique). Whoops, there I go saving time again by cut/pasting… LOL

  80. 115

    Liberal Scientist spews:

    Good gawd you’re thick.
    You really don’t get how unconvincing, not to mention terribly clueless, you demonstrate yourself to be.

    There is something deeply flawed with the premise of your ‘argument’, and from that flows a sewer-stream of irrelevance.

  81. 116

    Liberal Scientist spews:

    You know (directed at everyone here but Dave), Dave’s propensity for writing non-sequitorius, poorly-thought out, glibertarian-driven drivel, coupled with his insistence that he is both correct and misunderstood/abused by the small minds here, bears vivid resemblance to puddy.

    Just the other day RR seemed to be missing the old pud-ster. See what you did?

    I wonder if Dave, with his endlessly circular and non-adapting/responding arguments, is another algorithm or talk-bot, like pud. Any thoughts?

  82. 117

    spews:

    political zealots

    LOL! This guy can’t buy a clue to save his life..

    Apparently troll central registered major fail with the name-calling, racist “independent” comment-bot I call the asshat troll (mr. $50 plus/hour) and is working in “independent moderate”, “i’m smarter than you, you’re all stupid” comment-bot Dave..

    A troll in yet another guise…

    major fail again..

  83. 118

    Michael spews:

    7) Mike (and now you) has repeatedly said insults are the norm around here so you shouldn’t have any problem with me one. Especially when it’s actually more of a perfectly appropriate analogy th

    I didn’t see the actual insult, we do try to limit them to the actual person. A few people brought peoples spouses and children into it and we decided that that was going too far. But, it sounds like I’d back you up on this one.

  84. 119

    spews:

    People with no valid argument (and crackerjack lawyers) tend to use silly insults in place of sound reason and common sense.

    The only insults that are exchanged here are between people on the side of progress and righteousness and trolls.. The trolls always lead with insults.

    There’s a variety of opinion among the regulars here and imho you’ll always be too troll-blind to see or acknowledge it.

  85. 121

    spews:

    115. Liberal Scientist spews:
    Good gawd you’re thick.
    You really don’t get how unconvincing, not to mention terribly clueless, you demonstrate yourself to be.
    There is something deeply flawed with the premise of your ‘argument’, and from that flows a sewer-stream of irrelevance.

    116. Liberal Scientist spews:
    You know, Dave’s propensity for writing non-sequitorius, poorly-thought out, glibertarian-driven drivel, coupled with his insistence that he is both correct and misunderstood/abused by the small minds here, bears vivid resemblance to puddy.

    1) Iow, “I, lib slut, have no reply for the perfectly valid points you just brought up in @113 and @114 so I’ll revert to deflecting away from addressing what I can’t argue”… Wow, that’s a GOOD “rebuttal” ROFLOL!!!……

    I wonder if Dave, with his endlessly circular and non-adapting/responding arguments, is another algorithm or talk-bot, like pud. Any thoughts?

    2) That’s must be a damn good talk-bot then. Watch out, Skynet and the terminator must not be far away if they can create such a good talk-bot… LOL, you’re too funny. You should try a comedy tour with other people in here. You could tour with the Jersey Shores cast and fit right in with their level of “critical thinking skills”… OMG, this is hilarious!!!…

    119. YLB spews:

    People with no valid argument (and crackerjack lawyers) tend to use silly insults in place of sound reason and common sense.

    The only insults that are exchanged here are between people on the side of progress and righteousness and trolls.. The trolls always lead with insults.

    3) Wrong again. Look back to my very first posts and you’ll see absolutely no insults UNTIL the non thinkers around here (YLB pretty close to the top of the list of idiots) made the unwise decision to start throwing them my way. Don’t go in the kitchen if you can’t take the heat and don’t pick an argument with someone who can run circles around you…

    I’m perfectly happy to have civil “open minded” discussions but you people can’t do that (back to 1 again- lib slut reply). Please learn to actually use your brains rather than just trying to deflect with non-related insults. You’re really embarrassing yourselves

  86. 122

    spews:

    Here come’s another meaningless reply from YLB because that’s all his 85 IQ will allow. Wait for it… Wait…

  87. 123

    Steve spews:

    “(and crackerjack lawyers)”

    Whoever said that as an insult towards Roger might want to reconsider. That’s slang for saying that he is a lawyer of excellent ability. Hmm, and that doesn’t even cover the portion of Roger’s career when he served as a judge.

    Or perhaps that person intended it to mean that Roger got a degree out of a Crackerjack box, which might be to infer that he hasn’t a degree at all. If that was the intent, then that was a fail – the wrong use of slang along with a mistaken assessment of Roger’s education.

    Who the fuck said that?

  88. 124

    No Time for Fascists spews:

    Dave, instead of answering my question with a link, answer the question.
    By your logic, would a single landowner get the single vote if he owned all the land?
    Yes.
    No.
    Why?

  89. 125

    spews:

    124. No Time for Fascists spews:
    Dave, instead of answering my question with a link, answer the question.
    By your logic, would a single landowner get the single vote if he owned all the land?
    Yes.
    No.
    Why?

    1) Since I already answered your Q the last 2 times you asked it what sense does it make to do it again… Are you serious?!…. That’s crazy. If you’re not going to read the last 2 times I answered it then there’s absolutely NO reason to expect anything different now is there?

    2)
    It’s on the link and it’s meaningless to regurgitate it over and over. What, your computer can’t go to a link? It’s pretty darn easy to just click and READ. Good grief…

  90. 126

    No Time for Fascists spews:

    It’s not that hard. It’s YES or NO.
    I don’t have to time to wade through 35 pages and 42354 links and 532 bullet and sub bullets.

    You SHOULD be able to summarize your justification into a sentence of 40 words or less. But you seem unable to.

    You won’t.
    By your logic, a single land owner would have the only vote.
    I think you don’t want to admit it. You don’t want to admit you support serfdom.

  91. 127

    Steve spews:

    It only makes sense that consideration be given to voting rights for property taxation being based on the valuation of the property owned, or at least the quantity of properties owned. Why on earth should someone with a $150,000 house have equal representation as someone with a $40 million dollar estate? A half mile away there are waterfront compounds owned by Gates and the Nordstroms. Yikes! Valuation would likely give them a thousand votes each to my one. Eh. Perhaps a vote per property owned. Hmm, that’d give me two votes to their one each. I also have an undeveloped lot. I should be able to get another vote for that, right? Or at least 1/3 of a vote.

  92. 128

    spews:

    123. Steve spews:
    “(and crackerjack lawyers)”

    1) Infering that he speaks of what he actually does NOT have a good understanding of. I.e. his extremely poor analysis of the Zimmerman topic (as opposed to the much better analysis by Robert Pope here, here,and even here to a degree).

    2) I also said: If he “was a lawyer” it must have been civil law because, based on his opinionated assumptions irt the Zimmerman case, he doesn’t know a lot about criminal law. God help anyone he would’ve represented as a criminal lawyer (state OR defendant)…

    So which was it, Civil or Criminal?

  93. 129

    spews:

    126. No Time for Fascists spews:
    You SHOULD be able to summarize your justification into a sentence of 40 words or less. But you seem unable to.
    You won’t.
    By your logic, a single land owner would have the only vote.
    I think you don’t want to admit it. You don’t want to admit you support serfdom.

    1) Are your eyes open? Seriously, check. I answered those Q’s before and you chose not to read them. My god, all you have to do is go to the thread and use the “find” feature to spread up the search.

    2) I can’t help the lazy. who won’t read the answer the first 2 (maybe even 3-4) times it’s previously been given and then wants it “just one more time”… LOL.. Btw, those answers I referred you to were answers to YOUR Q’s that you didn’t read… You’re starting to look less and less intellectual/

  94. 130

    Steve spews:

    Well, then you need to work on your slang and insults. A crackerjack lawyer is an excellent lawyer.

    Who the heck is Robert Pope? I hope I don’t have to click on a link to find out.

  95. 131

    spews:

    @127-

    See fascists reply because your arguments were also answered ad nauseam on that very same thread. Remember “the find on this page feature” helps a lot…

  96. 132

    spews:

    @130-

    1) Crackerjack as in crackerjack box. Good grief you people are dense. It’s a slang that has many meanings and if you can’t figure out (per the CONTEXT of it’s use) the way I was leaning then you’re around YLM’s level…(that’s not very good in case you couldn’t read through that context either)…

    2) It’s “Richard” Pope (I know a lawyer named Robert so his name is in my head). Yes, you have to click the link (the exercise will be good for you). Richard Pope is a lawyer that Rabit has conversed with so you probably know him…

    3) So was Rabbit Civil or Criminal?

  97. 133

    Steve spews:

    @127 WTF are you talking about?

    As for fascist, why not simple a yes or no answer for the guy and anybody else who just have showed up and who hasn’t followed you through multiple threads.

  98. 134

    Steve spews:

    “Crackerjack as in crackerjack box. Good grief you people are dense. It’s a slang that has many meanings and if you can’t figure out (per the CONTEXT of it’s use) the way I was leaning then you’re around YLM’s level…(that’s not very good in case you couldn’t read through that context either)…”

    Spectacular fail. There are like umpteen slang dictionaries on the internet. Try using one. You’ll learn that “crackerjack lawyer” has a very real and broadly understood meaning that’s been around since long before you were born. Rather than admit that you were wrong, you choose to redefine it in a way that nobody else uses and then call me dense for not knowing exactly WTF you’re talking about. How pathetic.

  99. 135

    spews:

    Imagine on 1Mar (random date) you had a back and forth conversation with someone. You answered the same basic dozen Q’s (all reiterations of 2-3 underlying themes) multiple times. Now, a few weeks later, that person brings up the VERY same Q’s and want’s you to answer them “AGAIN”. Are you seriously saying that you’d just go on month after month re-answering those Q’s when an easy “click could direct to the exact same answer?!?…. If so, you’re willing to waste a lot more time than I am.

    Since you’re so big on thinking people aren’t answering Q’s how about #3 in @132, OR #2 in @128…

    You people seem to love asking and hate answering. “Real productive”…

  100. 136

    spews:

    Steve @ 134

    You’ve been to (un)sp to trade a few barbs and so has Michael and Liberal Scientist, Roger Rabbit, even your truly. Admittedly not in a long while because I despise that crowd.

    Why not Dave I wonder? I thought it’d be a good way to prove his “independent, moderate” credentials. Any thoughts?

  101. 137

    Steve spews:

    I’m thinking Psych 101 again. Hmm, and maybe even goats. And here I had thought we’d gotten past that when the Klown and the self-loathing black loon flew the coop.

  102. 138

    Steve spews:

    @136 I’ve only lurked there. I considered commenting on the recent Trayvon thread but it didn’t happen. If I ever do, I’ll use “Steve from HA” so I can get the hate towards me ramped up right away.

  103. 140

    Steve spews:

    @136 Like many shallow, closed-minded people, Dave already has his mind made up. He’s got it all figured out. Sigh! Read his blog and five minutes later one knows everything he has to say. He doesn’t come here to explore his ideas with us and get feedback and to grow his ideas. Instead, he appears to come here only to condescendingly deliver to us “the truth” according to Dave. It only took a few days for him to shoot his, heh, intellectual wad and start refering us back to previous threads. He’ll be fun for a few pokes but, because he has no game, boredom with him will no doubt soon set in. I think I’m already there.

  104. 141

    spews:

    @134-
    You’re correct that I should specify crackerjack box. It most likely came about from a variation of being a “crack shot” in the old old west. Does anyone actually believe that with the recent history of “crackerjacks” the candy, anyone would want an association between that and their profession? I’m sure you have no answer to that Q’s so I’ll move on.

    The crackerjack box implication can still be used without implying he has “no degree” at all. My point being that the expertise of his degree does NOT appear to be in the criminal side of the law. He act’s like a dermatologist answering Oncology Q’s. As opposed to Richard Pope’s analysis which is much more spot on irt “criminal law”… It’s a good thing the dictionary updates frequently. Do you actually have a point of view as to what Rabbits expertise is in or are you more of an obscure scrabble sluth?

    Btw, I already pointed out @90,#7(above) that nobody here is an expert in English language. You don’t even have to click that one… Can you manage to find it if it’s on the same page?…

  105. 142

    spews:

    140. Steve spews:
    @136 Like many shallow, closed-minded people, Dave already has his mind made up. He’s got it all figured out. Sigh! Read his blog and five minutes later one knows everything he has to say. He doesn’t come here to explore his ideas with us and get feedback and to grow his ideas. Instead, he appears to come here only to condescendingly deliver to us “the truth” according to Dave. It only took a few days for him to shoot his, heh, intellectual wad and start refering us back to previous threads. He’ll be fun for a few pokes but, because he has no game, boredom with him will no doubt soon set in. I think I’m already there.

    LOL. Look in the mirror “friend”… You just described yourself (and most of the HA middle-school girls/boys clique. ROFLOL!!!… You can’t handle someone who proves you wrong. Id you were up to the challenge you’d do the simple point and click but you’re as lazy as the want to be “intellectuals” here. Pathetic.

    The truth is what my blog is, you’re correct. Do you dispute my Zimmerman analysis? How about that one. Do you admit I’ve got that one pegged or do you think my analysis is wrong? If so, debate it! You refrain from entering into ANYTHING that you know I’m correct about because you don’t want to admit it. That’s how you school kids stay happy in your little clique world… Some day maybe you can go into the big kids end of the pool….

  106. 143

    Steve spews:

    “I’m sure you have no answer to that Q’s so I’ll move on.”

    Actually, I do, but I’d rather you used your search engine, looked up “crackerjack lawyer”, and figure this one out for yourself. You were wrong and to see you worm around is hilarious.

    I’ll leave it for Roger to discuss his experise. From my professional perspective, I will say that, to become a licensed electrical engineer one must pass an EIT exam that covers all engineering disciplines. That is before one takes the exam in one’s selected discipline. In a professional setting, I do not offer myself as having expertise in disiplines other than my own. However, on this very blog I’ve found myself correcting people of any political stripe who, without having any knowledge of the subject, criticize the structural engineering design of the new 520 bridge. Structural engineering isn’t my discipline as recognized by the state, but it’s not like I’m ignorant on the subject. If you said something stupid about fire protection, while not a disipline of mine either, I wouldn’t hesitate to correct you. And if you knew that I was a licensed engineer and questioned what engineering discipline I was in that qualified me to straighten out someone without even layperson knowledge, I would then know that your dedication to ignorance has left you a lost cause.

  107. 144

    No Time for Fascists spews:

    I’ll gladly apologize if you can show me the link where you answered my question about a single land owner in a clear and succinct post, not buried as point 38 of a 43 screen post, that wasn’t not in a linked link, that didn’t try to deflect the issue by going off on a tangent about out of state sales taxes.

  108. 145

    Steve spews:

    “Do you dispute my Zimmerman analysis? How about that one. Do you admit I’ve got that one pegged or do you think my analysis is wrong?”

    I read it and I found it to be shallow and insipid. Do your usual cut & paste and we’ll all discuss.

    “LOL. Look in the mirror “friend”…”

    I’m not your friend. Far from it.

    “You just described yourself”

    You haven’t been around so you wouldn’t know that I’ve copyrighted all the Psych 101 putdowns for wingnut projection, including projection of projection, which you’re doing here. And don’t get me started on your narcissism. Really, you shouldn’t go there with me. Heh. I’ll let you off with a warning this time.

  109. 146

    Michael spews:

    @128
    Dude, HA is a biased site. Of course Rog, is being biased.

    I also said: If he “was a lawyer” it must have been civil law because, based on his opinionated assumptions irt the Zimmerman case, he doesn’t know a lot about criminal law.

    LOL… You had to know your law pretty freaking well to do what Rog did. And again, just because we at one way on here, doesn’t mean we act that way all the time. Out in the “real world” a almost never swear.

  110. 149

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    This is WAAAY too much like puddy.

    Dave is either a really dense human, with just enough intellectual faculty to have convinced himself that he’s found some grand unified theory, or a talk bot.

    Remarkably, he has spent way more time saying that he’s already explained something, and making references and links that do not do what he says they do (a la puddy) than it would have take to delineate his thoughts, concisely.

    Dave is a joke. He is convinced he has all the answers, and is here to educate all of us. Or, he’s a malicious talk-bot. Again, shade of puddy.

  111. 150

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    Oh, and the ‘crackerjack’ bullshit – the term is a positive, yet he used it as a pejorative – either he’s a talk-bot, or he’s has Mitt Romney’s grasp of popular culture.

  112. 151

    spews:

    Good of you to come back to the sales tax Q that you’ve neglected to confront about 15-20 times. Tell you what. You address 2 of the Q’s I’ve asked 15-20 times then we can address you’re repeat of a repeat of a repeated question… Sounds fair doesn’t it.

    It’s only 2 (that you’ve seen multiple times and never really answered):
    1) How can you possibly agree with: If a vote to raise the WA state sales tax to 12% was being conducted and ID/OR voters within 50 miles of our border were allowed to vote. That would be introducing a subset of voters who could vote for a tax they didn’t have to pay for, but would in fact benefit from as more people crossed the borders to make purchases.

    – Simple mathematics (explained/linked to numerous times) shows how making that vote a supermajority would at least account (to a degree) for those “unaffected voters” from the neighboring states who would tend to vote “yes” in high numbers. It would, in fact, necessitate a supermajority vote and is the exact same situation as when non property tax payers are allowed to vote for property tax increases on “other people” that they themselves do not pay.

    2) This shows that the basic mathematics works both ways (to require a SUPERMAJORITY OR sometimes A MINORITY)
    Additionally, a MINORITY can also be mathematically necessary to equalize a vote. Imagine if a union was having an internal vote on something beneficial to their membership. If anti-union people from outside the union were also allowed to vote it would be the “yes” votes that were “victimized” and mathematics would demonstrate why a simple “minority” would be necessary to account for the group of anti-union voters being allowed to vote along with the union members.

    For ex: 80 U/ 20 non-U… If all 20 voted no, even a 63% (50/80) yes vote from the Union members wouldn’t pass. In this situation a 41% minority (of the 100 people voting) would be required to equalize the vote.
    ————————————————
    Seems pretty easy. You just have to address those two analogies (which by the way are WAY MORE on topic than a half dozen off the wall ones you tried to use). Be “complete” (meaning not simply Yes/No) Let’s see some detailed reasons as to why you SUPPORT the basic concept of ID/WA voters voting a tax on WA citizens and how it DOESN”T MAKE SENSE to require a MINORITY vote in the union example..

    I’ll be holing my breath…

  113. 152

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    We better make sure not to let people use E=MC2 too often because that would make it look like a tantrum and wouldn’t help convince the “intelligent, educated, politically and socially aware people like those that populate this site” (cough, cough) anyway correct? OGM, LOL!

    OK, Einstein. So now the fact that you’ve taken the mental vomit that you put up on your blog, and link to verbatim on your blog, and post and link to here over and over, is equivalent to reliably using the extremely well criticized and tested special theory of relativity?

    You really do have delusion of grandeur.

  114. 153

    spews:

    149. Lib Slut

    1) Iow, “I, lib slut, have no reply for the perfectly valid points you just brought up in @113 and @114 so I’ll revert to deflecting away from addressing what I can’t argue”… Wow, that’s a GOOD “rebuttal” ROFLOL!!!…

    The replies are pretty easy when you consistently fail to “answer” what you know you can not answer. Perhaps you’ve had enough rest from the massage parlor to actually answer those points? Your “selfish” argument was particularly WEAK so I understand your embarrassment in addressing it. Your “best” argument is to ignore the failure of your weak arguments. Prove me wrong and address the numbered points in those 2 posts (you don’t even have to link to them).

    That’s what I thought… ROFLOL!!!…

  115. 154

    Steve spews:

    @150 “Oh, and the ‘crackerjack’ bullshit – the term is a positive, yet he used it as a pejorative – either he’s a talk-bot, or he’s has Mitt Romney’s grasp of popular culture.”

    To see Dave go into complete denial over something so inconsequential as his misuse of slang leaves me seeing no reason to have any further discussion with him.

  116. 155

    spews:

    @152 Lib Slut-
    Hey!!! That’s ONE down. Keep going, there’s only a few left. You could be the FIRST to address all the points in a reply. Keep it up!

    I can’t wait for your counter-argument to my trouncing of the “selfish” idea. I’m waiting…

  117. 157

    spews:

    154. Steve spews:
    @150 To see Dave go into complete denial over something so inconsequential as his misuse of slang leaves me seeing no reason to have any further discussion with him.

    1) You must have trouble reading because I already said I should use crackerjack “box”.

    2) You’re really pathetic when you can’t even acknowledge someone agreeing with you “friend”!!!

    Wow, you do have issues…

  118. 158

    spews:

    156. Roger Rabbit spews:
    @155 I’m not that easy, so don’t get your hopes up.

    So am I correct or not? It was “CIVIL” law wasn’t it?… Don’t want to admit it? I know, I know, you’re wondering: “How could he have known that simply based on my answers irt the Zimmerman case”.

    It was exactly those comments that gave it away.

    You still haven’t “CONFIRMED” it yet but I understand it’s probably hard for you to admit the truth.

  119. 159

    Steve spews:

    “I understand it’s probably hard for you to admit the truth”

    Projection. It’s a Psych 101 thing.

  120. 161

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    @151

    Dave, you seem to have a profound misapprehension of the concept of the franchise – or, in simpler words, who gets to vote.
    I think this may be at the heart of all the drivel you post here, so let me try to help.

    You seem to think your analogies – about the Oregon and Idaho voters maliciously interfering in a vote about the Washington sales tax, or non-union members skewing a union vote – is somehow congruent with the notion of voters that include non-property owners voting on property taxes. They are not.

    What they do is reveal your views on the franchise, which are profoundly undemocratic.
    Your two examples – the out-of-state voters and the non-union voters – are indeed outsiders who should not have an opportunity to vote on matters in Washington, or in the union, respectively. That’s the notion of defining the members of a set, or who is, and is not, a citizen for the purposes of democratic decision making.

    You apply this to the notion of property tax policy, and assert, very wrong-headedly, that non-property owners should not have a say. Your simple voter math is explicitly designed to disenfranchise and nullify the votes of the people you find undesirable – precisely the malicious outsiders in your two examples. It also assumes that all property tax increases are bad, and that the danger is that these undesirables will allow such a thing to happen.

    Now, as far as the mechanics go, I have, and other have, taken it at face value and critiqued your methodology. To repeat, why 60%? Your model has some basis in rationality – the frequency of property owners among all citizens. However, you make unsupported assumptions about peoples’ behaviors and motivations that, even if correct (a huge ‘if’) and have no place in a democratic voting system.

    However, more objectionable is the stated goal – to disenfranchise a huge swath of the population. You seem to deny the basic tenet of democracy that a free people can organize their government and society any way they see fit. If we, as citizen voters, decide to fund our government by taxing property, or financial transactions, or sales, or income, or private jets, or cars, then we can do that.

    Your pernicious ideas would take that power out of the hands of any who are eligible citizen voters, and put it exclusively in the hands of property owners. Very undemocratic.

    What next? Only Jews get to vote to tax themselves to pay for a national Holocaust Memorial? Only car owners get to vote whether to pay registration fees? Only parents of school age children determine the outcome of school levies, and are the only of us who would be subject to pay for them? Do we only provide a fire department through fees paid by people who’ve suffered a fire?

    Your ‘ideas’ are nonsensical, and silly, and fairly transparently a protest against participating in a society with people you consider your inferiors. They are re-tread glibertarian nonsense that holds that government should do nothing, and that we should each only pay for what we directly use.

    These notions are a profound denial of community, and collective action, and a mature, healthy society.

    As I’ve said before, you seem not to be able to see beyond the end of your nose, nor to understand that there are layers and layers of both responsibility and cost and benefit. Yours are very concrete and adolescent ways of seeing the world, and would be terribly destructive if put into practice.

  121. 162

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    Dave says…

    3) Your argument states selfishness is wrong and I completely agree! However, you then advocate for that EXACT thing (selfishness). How is it NOT SELFISH for someone to say: “Only people with property should pay my school’s levy that I get to vote yes for??? Your thought process irt selfishness goes to MY very argument and you STILL can’t see it…

    You do show your true colors here. You don’t want to participate in a society in which those who have benefited (in this case, those that own real estate) give back something to the greater, communal good, like public schools.

    As I’ve said before, you have an adolescent, immature, concrete style of understanding complex adult relationships, including those with your fellow citizens.

    You really need to put down the Ayn Rand (she received Social Security and Medicare, you know), it’s not good for you.

  122. 163

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Dave’s argument about property taxes appears to be based on an assumption that renters don’t pay property taxes.

    It’s true renters don’t directly pay property taxes, but they indirectly pay them, because that’s a pass-through cost. Landlords are like any other investors; they can’t stay in business if they lose money, so when taxes on their rental properties go up, they have to pass those higher costs through to tenants in the form of higher rents. If you’re a renter, and you vote for higher property taxes, you’re voting to raise your rent.

    When this is properly taken into account, there’s no logical reason for renters to have less say about property taxes than owners.

  123. 164

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    @163
    The fact that renters don’t directly pay property tax is the sort of thing that trips Dave up, as well as other glibertarians.
    Like I, and others, have said, these people cannot understand relationships or cause/effect events beyond the immediately obvious. Their thinking is somehow stunted and immature, and moreover, they seem motivated by a fairly raw and resentful greed.

    Maybe there should be poll tests reintroduced. Instead of asking African Americans in the south how many bubbles are in a bar of soap (true story), we should ask people questions to find out whether they’re libertarian fools, and not let them vote.

    What do you think of that, Dave?

  124. 165

    No Time for Fascists spews:

    I did not ask about sales taxes or union votes. I ask about your super majority in context of property taxes.

    By your logic,
    You want a 60% super-majority to raise taxes because not everyone is a property owner. This “evens” it out.
    If everyone was a property owner, you would be find with a 50% threshold, because everyone was even.
    But if there was only one property owner, only his vote would count, to make it even.

    Why would we want to go to such a broken, unfair system? 50% majority is fair and right and any other argument is just a mask for being greedy and not wanting to pay for services.

  125. 166

    rhp6033 spews:

    What’s going on here? This thread is several days old, and “Dave” is trying to imply that unless Roger Rabbit is an experienced criminal attorney (i.e., criminal vs. civil), then Dave’s un-informed opinions count more than his.

    I’ve got some news for you, Dave. It’s impossible to pass the state bar exam without having a fundamental knowledge of criminal law. Heck, it’s impossible to get past the first year of law school without having taken at least one term of criminal law, where you quickly get into how the civil law was incorporated into the criminal law of the early U.S., and was only later codified. Every lawyer knows the basics of mens resis, the elements of burglary under common law vs. codified law, and the concept of “affirmative defenses” such as self-defense.

    You are striking out here – trying fruitlessly to find someone who will agree with your definitions, despite those who know better trying to correct you.

    By your timely appearance on this board you seem to be yet another election-year troll who’s purpose is to disrupt the site and spread Fox News talking-points to divert attention from Republicans being unsuitable for any office in this state. Those usually dissapear shortly after an election. Are you one of those? If so, how much do you get paid?

  126. 167

    No Time for Fascists spews:

    If a vote to raise the WA state sales tax to 12% was being conducted and ID/OR voters within 50 miles of our border were allowed to vote.
    Ahhhh. I just realized. you are confusing voting and taxes with MONEY. You think dollars spent somehow equates to representation.

    Of course the people outside of the taxing district don’t get to vote, if they don’t like the taxes, they don’t have to shop here. If I spend $100 in Oregon, I don’t get a say in their taxes.

    And on it’s face, your argument makes no sense. It makes no sense to include people from other states, who may shop here. They don’t live the community, go to those school, use the local DSHS and elder care services, have the local zoning, use the schools. They have no connection to the community.
    Shoppers do not make a community.

  127. 168

    No Time for Fascists spews:

    I found it amusing when Dave’s logic was applied to women’s issues, as in, “only women should have a vote on women’s health and contraception issues, since they have 100% of the ovaries”, he got all indignant and sputtered that it was completely different and men should have an equal say.
    Totally unable to see the parallels to his 60% majority argument.

  128. 169

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    @168
    Dave is a glibertarian buffoon. Nothing any more complicated than that.

  129. 171

    The Real Fake Pudge spews:

    Don’t worry, Dave, I’ve got your back against these lying liberal liars. In fact, I wrote a song about them that you can hear on my site. It’s called, “You’re all Damned Liars!”

    The Real Fake Pudge

    PS: Don’t be fooled by the guy calling himself ‘Fake Pudge’. He’s not The Real Fake Pudge. He’s just a damn liberal lying Fake Pudge. In fact, I wrote a song about him that you can listen to on my site. It’s called, “Fake Pudge is a Damned Liar!”

  130. 173

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    I was looking back to some of ‘Dave’s’ first posts here – mid-March – and I came across this:

    I was wondering if everyone has come to realize why supermajority votes should be required for property tax levies? I happened upon an old article that basically asked: why is 50% +1 good enough to elect a governor or president, but not to provide money for schools?

    A number of things are weird – but I’m intrigued by the “I happened upon an old article…”

    Now the construction of that sentence is very reminiscent of the sidebar ads touting “this simple old one-step weight loss trick…”, and I think it likely has as much legitimacy, but I would really like to know from Dave, what was this “old article”?

    Who wrote it, where was it published? Please provide a link to the full length document. I think this could be very illuminating.

  131. 174

    spews:

    Looks long, but mainly blockquotes:

    161. Liberal Slut:
    @151
    Your two examples – the out-of-state voters and the non-union voters – are indeed outsiders who should not have an opportunity to vote on matters in Washington, or in the union, respectively.

    1) No, those are perfect examples of how equalizing a vote is mathematically required to ensure a FAIR vote. Apparently you are unable to comprehend that basic fact.

    You apply this to the notion of property tax policy, and assert, very wrong-headedly, that non-property owners should not have a say. Your simple voter math is explicitly designed to disenfranchise and nullify the votes of the people you find undesirable – precisely the malicious outsiders in your two examples. It also assumes that all property tax increases are bad, and that the danger is that these undesirables will allow such a thing to happen.

    2) Completely wrong “again” and extremely wrong-headed on YOUR part. Disenfranchising of “property owners” is what occurs with a simple majority vote because their votes are “marginalized” by others being able to vote a tax “upon” the property owners. If you were TRULY concerned with “disenfranchising” you’d want a supermajority iot “even the playing field” for EVERYONE…

    –“Assumes that all property taxes are bad” What are you talking about??? That’s more drawing of senseless conclusions, on your part, based on your visceral assumptions about something you don’t like. Namely, the undeniable fact that a supermajority evens out votes when people who don’t pay the tax are allowed to vote on the tax for someone ELSE).

    However, more objectionable is the stated goal – to disenfranchise a huge swath of the population.

    3) See #2 irt who you seem perfectly happy disenfranchising…

    Your pernicious ideas would take that power out of the hands of any who are eligible citizen voters, and put it exclusively in the hands of property owners. Very undemocratic.

    4) 100% completely UNTRUE. It equalizes the vote but in no way takes power away from any voters. As I’ve repeated (a dozen or more times), most votes are perfectly appropriate as simple majorities, but others need one iot make it a FAIR vote for EVERYONE. WA’s constitution had it correct before the crazy underhanded vote (that many voters didn’t understand, but were “influenced” by with the exploitative “for the children” ads). Btw, even with all the misunderstanding and exploitative ads, it “BARELY” passed. At some point in the future it’ll be returned to the much more fair supermajority.

    5) To save space I’ll simply say that your silly examples are yet another display of someone reaching for “straws” when they’re faced with the conundrum of deciding to accept/favor something they know is unjust (selfish) simply because it provides personal benefit vs. the selfish alternative of accepting the TRUTH that it’s an unjust situation that needs changed. The conundrum is due to the fact that fixing the selfish/unjust aspect would be at the expense of their personal benefit/gain (like getting extra money from property owners for things you want them to pay for).

    6) How about “everyone” pays for the extra levy money the districts claim they need? Why not allow everyone to contribute? What’s so important about getting the money from only one group? Oh yea, you think that’s democratic…

    162. Liberal Slut spews:
    You do show your true colors here. You don’t want to participate in a society in which those who have benefited (in this case, those that own real estate) give back something to the greater, communal good, like public schools.

    7) Are you delusional? Property owners already do pay into society via basic property taxes… Again, you’re drawing senseless conclusions based on your visceral assumptions about something you don’t like.

  132. 175

    spews:

    Looks long, but mainly blockquotes:

    165/167. Fascists spews:
    I did not ask about sales taxes or union votes. I ask about your super majority in context of property taxes.:

    1) You’re the very last one who should talk about analogies because mine are 100X more relevant than the ones you’ve stretched to make comparisons with. The 100% valid reasons for a supermajority (and occasionally a minority) have been provided “numerous” times. I can lead the head of a horses ass to reverse osmosis crystal clear water (the truth), but I can’t make it drink (accept the truth).

    -Some people just aren’t capable of dealing with the conundrum of deciding to accept/favor something they know is unjust (selfish) simply because it provides personal benefit vs. the selfish alternative of accepting the TRUTH that it’s an unjust situation that needs changed. The conundrum is due to the fact that fixing the selfish/unjust aspect would be at the expense of their personal benefit/gain (like getting extra money from property owners for things you want them to pay for).

    168. Fascists spews:
    I found it amusing when Dave’s logic was applied to women’s issues, as in, “only women should have a vote on women’s health and contraception issues, since they have 100% of the ovaries”, he got all indignant and sputtered that it was completely different and men should have an equal say.
    Totally unable to see the parallels to his 60% majority argument.

    2) It would be amusing if true. Since it’s not, it’s not…

    -Since your memory is so bad (Alzheimer’s?) here’s what was said (weeks ago) when you brought it up:
    You said:

    By your logic then, basic mathematical and democratic fairness says that men should never vote on women’s health issues since they don’t get pregnancy and don’t have to pay the physical cost of a pregnancy. It’s the same logic.

    -I replied:

    There are valid arguments for that position and I don’t really like seeing a bunch of men making decisions irt those issues. However, it’s not the same logic because men definitely do have a stake in pregnancies. In fact, a big part of societies problems is that too many men take your suggestion to heart and remain largely un involved in both the pregnancy process and the raising of the child. The more the father is involved the better but too many are uncommitted. Then there’s the financial costs, voluntary or mandated via child support, of raising a child. Emotionally, duty wise, and financially, men have a very large part in pregnancies/child rearing.

    -Notice, the first things I mention are not irt anyone’s “pocketbook” (as you like to “wrongly” infer the main issue is). The main points are that fathers have (or at least should have) just as much involvement in a child’s life as the mother. From ensuring the mother gets good nutrition and remains comfortable, to the raising (teaching good habits and skills, like “Critical Thinking Skills“). “Then” I bring up the other aspect which is undeniably a financial one, but one that (BOTH) parents generally share (especially with more dual income &/or non-married couples).

    [CHORTLE!]

  133. 176

    spews:

    173. Liberal Slut spews:
    I was looking back to some of ‘Dave’s’ first posts here – mid-March – and I came across this:

    I was wondering if everyone has come to realize why supermajority votes should be required for property tax levies? I happened upon an old article that basically asked: why is 50% +1 good enough to elect a governor or president, but not to provide money for schools?

    A number of things are weird – but I’m intrigued by the “I happened upon an old article…”

    Now the construction of that sentence is very reminiscent of the sidebar ads touting “this simple old one-step weight loss trick…”, and I think it likely has as much legitimacy, but I would really like to know from Dave, what was this “old article”?

    Who wrote it, where was it published? Please provide a link to the full length document. I think this could be very illuminating.

    1) LOL… Wow, the conspiracy theory comes up from the resident buffoon/slut…*shakes head in disbelief as to the ridiculousness and hilarity of slut’s comment*… I think it was a Seattle times editorial by an “objective news reporter” Cough, cough, cough… Do a Google/Yahoo search and I’m sure you can find it, knock yourself out.

    -It was basically the same regurgitation of incorrect, viscerally skewed, opinions from someone unable to come to grips with the conundrum of deciding to accept/favor something they know is unjust (selfish) simply because it provides personal benefit vs. the selfish alternative of accepting the TRUTH that it’s an unjust situation that needs changed. The conundrum is due to the fact that fixing the selfish/unjust aspect would be at the expense of their personal benefit/gain (like getting extra money from property owners for things you want them to pay for).

  134. 177

    spews:

    163. Roger Rabbit spews:
    Dave’s argument about property taxes appears to be based on an assumption that renters don’t pay property taxes.

    It’s true renters don’t directly pay property taxes, but they indirectly pay them, because that’s a pass-through cost. Landlords are like any other investors; they can’t stay in business if they lose money, so when taxes on their rental properties go up, they have to pass those higher costs through to tenants in the form of higher rents. If you’re a renter, and you vote for higher property taxes, you’re voting to raise your rent.

    When this is properly taken into account, there’s no logical reason for renters to have less say about property taxes than owners.

    1) The passthrough idea is great in UTOPIA. However, in the real world, landlords can only charge what “the market will bear”. With exceptionally low interest rates it’s easier to achieve a positive cash flow now. HOWEVER, in the not so distant past/near future when rates are 8-10+% it was/will be a lot harder to achieve positive cash flow.

    -Typically (again, in different interest environments), MANY landlords are NOT making positive cash flow from rentals. Some aren’t even “with” the lower interest rates. The renters typically pay 80-90% of the total costs of owning/maintaining the property. Sure, it would be nice to raise rents so they cover the entire costs (and occasionally it happens), but a vacant house with a $1,000/month rent isn’t as helpful to the owner’s overall financial situation as the same house “RENTED” for $900/month. The same concept applies to businesses.

    2) I can’t believe you don’t understand this. I thought you owned stocks? You’ve never heard of “margin erosion”…???

    3) You were much more correct when you previously posted comments that were in sync with mine here, here, and here… Oh that’s right, you somehow had a reversion from common mathematical sense since after getting hit over the head with that frying pan. Next time she’s cooking you really should consider asking her to do it again to reverse the process.

  135. 178

    spews:

    164. Liberal Slut:
    @163
    The fact that renters don’t directly pay property tax is the sort of thing that trips Dave up, as well as other glibertarians.
    Like I, and others, have said, these people cannot understand relationships or cause/effect events beyond the immediately obvious. Their thinking is somehow stunted and immature, and moreover, they seem motivated by a fairly raw and resentful greed.

    Maybe there should be poll tests reintroduced. Instead of asking African Americans in the south how many bubbles are in a bar of soap (true story), we should ask people questions to find out whether they’re libertarian fools, and not let them vote.

    What do you think of that, Dave?

    1) Irt rental pass through see reply to Rabbit (above). You can also read Rabbit’s VERY OWN words irt rents AND the validity of a supermajority vote HERE, HERE AND HERE. Very COGENT thoughts to be sure (and in complete agreement with my own).

    2) A vote to keep people like you who vote viscerally rather than with calm, rational, common sense would certainly help but I could NOT support that because I, unlike YOU, do not wish to disenfranchise voters…

    -We just have to put up with the likes of “buffoons” like you who prefer to accept/favor something they know is unjust (selfish) simply because it provides personal benefit vs. the selfish alternative of accepting the TRUTH that it’s an unjust situation that needs changed. The conundrum is due to the fact that fixing the selfish/unjust aspect would be at the expense of your personal “buffoonish” benefit/gain (like getting extra money from property owners for things you want them to pay for).

    3) Btw, irt other things extreme “wingers” (left & right) allow to continue: Add incumbents remaining in office for decades due to the general difficulty of removing an incumbent (even if they’re a marginal performer at best). This occurs, in great part, to simple “name recognition” as well as many people simply being afraid to vote a “known” out of office in favor of a “lesser known”. Term limits would be nice.

  136. 179

    spews:

    @166. rhp6033 spews:
    [“What’s going on here? This thread is several days old, and “Dave” is trying to imply that unless Roger Rabbit is an experienced criminal attorney (i.e., criminal vs. civil), then Dave’s un-informed opinions count more than his.

    I’ve got some news for you, Dave. It’s impossible to pass the state bar exam without having a fundamental knowledge of criminal law. Heck, it’s impossible to get past the first year of law school without having taken at least one term of criminal law, where you quickly get into how the civil law was incorporated into the criminal law of the early U.S., and was only later codified. Every lawyer knows the basics of mens resis, the elements of burglary under common law vs. codified law, and the concept of “affirmative defenses” such as self-defense.”]
    ——————–
    1) If my “uninformed opinions” are more accurate then YES they count more than his. “ANYONE’s opinion is better than another person’s if their’s is the more correct one (regardless of experience).

    2) All Navy/USMC pilots go through basic flight training prior to heading to specialized training. If a fixed wing pilot tried to take off with a helicopter 90+% would crash. All Dr’s go through the same initial classes as well so does that mean you’ll allow a dermatologist to operate on a brain tumor?…

    3) Obviouisly, any lawyer should know “the basics” of criminal law but if, during your career, you don’t routinely do criminal law, your NOT going to have as good of an opinion on it (obviously evident by Rabbits comments). He may have been the best civil lawyer/judge ever but his “criminal” opinions aren’t as accurate. That’s just the truth based on his comments irt the Zimmerman case.

    4) My point (verified as true) was that it was blatantly obvious, by his poor analysis of the Zimmerman topic, that he wasn’t speaking from a criminal background. It was easy to tell (although Michael @98 just thinks I’m freaking brilliant to be able to ascertain such things without having to be told what type of lawyer/judge he was). Contrast his bad analysis with the much better analysis by Richard Pope here, here,and even here to a degree)

  137. 180

    spews:

    @166. rhp6033 spews:

    By your timely appearance on this board you seem to be yet another election-year troll who’s purpose is to disrupt the site and spread Fox News talking-points to divert attention from Republicans being unsuitable for any office in this state. Those usually dissapear shortly after an election. Are you one of those? If so, how much do you get paid?

    1) Republican talking points? Are you seriously trying to say that the 2 main things I’ve been talking about (Trayvon/Zimmerman & supermajority votes) are big Republican talking points? Funny, I never heard those at any of the debates…

    2) Can people get paid for talking about those things on sites like this? i didn’t realize you people; were actually PAID. We’ll, I guess I could be hired for the right price but you (or whoever’s interested) will have to pay 6 figures (anyone making 7 figures for such activity is severely overpaid) and allow me to continue having an independent and moderate opinion based in sound judgement. I don’t allow my opinion to be clouded by FAR left/right rhetoric…

  138. 181

    Michael spews:

    My point (verified as true) was that it was blatantly obvious, by his poor analysis of the Zimmerman topic, that he wasn’t speaking from a criminal background.

    We’ll leave it up to Rog to tell you what kinda things he did as a lawyer, I’m guessing that he’s not going to tell you. But, I will tell you that I do know at least some of what Rog did and that you’re probably wrong above.

  139. 182

    Michael spews:

    -Typically (again, in different interest environments), MANY landlords are NOT making positive cash flow from rentals

    And many are. And some pass increases along and some don’t and there’s no way you can control for that.

    My family owns a couple of rentals and we’re making money on ours. We pass property tax increases along to our renters sometimes. I tell the people that rent from us straight up what kind of expenses we the landlords have and what % return we’re trying to make on our houses. When our renters see that it’s not a very high number they work with us and don’t trash the place. If the taxes go up enough that we’re not making x% we’ll pass that increase along to the renter. The couple of bucks has never been an issue.

    Look, everybody fucking votes and everybody’s vote is fucking equal in America. What you’re trying to do is to make people unequal under the law and that’s fucked. Sorry you don’t like it but in America the landed and the landless are equal.

  140. 183

    spews:

    182. Michael spews:

    My family owns a couple of rentals and we’re making money on ours. We pass property tax increases along to our renters sometimes.

    1) Exactly. “Sometimes

    Look, everybody fucking votes and everybody’s vote is fucking equal in America. What you’re trying to do is to make people unequal under the law and that’s fucked. Sorry you don’t like it but in America the landed and the landless are equal.

    2) Completely wrong and extremely wrong-headed on YOUR part. Disenfranchising of “property owners” is what occurs with a simple majority vote because their votes are “marginalized” by others being able to vote a tax “upon” the property owners. If you were TRULY concerned with “disenfranchising” you’d want a supermajority iot “even the playing field” for EVERYONE…

    3) It equalizes the vote but in no way takes power away from any voters. As I’ve repeated (a dozen or more times), most votes are perfectly appropriate as simple majorities, but others need one iot make it a FAIR vote for EVERYONE. WA’s constitution had it correct before the crazy underhanded vote (that many voters didn’t understand, but were “influenced” by with the exploitative “for the children” ads). Btw, even with all the misunderstanding and exploitative ads, it “BARELY” passed. At some point in the future it’ll be returned to the much more fair supermajority.

    4) How about “everyone” pays for the extra levy money the districts claim they need? Why not allow everyone to contribute? What’s so important about getting the money from only one group? Oh yea, you think that’s the American way…but it’s NOT and in WA, as mentioned above, it used to be the correct Supermajority. Some day we’ll reverse that and “fix it”.

  141. 184

    spews:

    Oh btw, irt the Zimmerman case:
    1) Lawyers: Zimmerman whispered ‘punks’ before shooting Trayvon Martin

    Imagine that! EXACTLY what was said a week ago here: Summary list of Trayvon/Zimmerman Facts & Assumptions & one “possible” scenario (#8)…

    2) Apparently, it’s just more of my freaking brilliance (according to Michael @98)…

    3) The story continues to unfold and the above “Summary-List” analysis by an “un-informed” (per rhp6033) looks better and better (counts more & more rhp?) than “just about” everyone on this site….

    CHORTLE!… (Fascist likes that one)