Ryan Blethen joins the rest of his editorial board in taking issue with the anti-Referendum 71 folks’ “Who Signed?” campaign.
What I, and this page, take issue with is the Web site called whosigned.org. The site will list everyone who signed Referendum 71. On the Web site it says this is being done so voters can make sure the public record is correct.
We all know that is not the case. The real purpose of whosigned.org is intimidation. People who sign petitions should understand that it is public record.
No, we don’t all know that this is not the case, for while intimidation, to some extent, is certainly part of the purpose of the whosigned.org web site, the strategy is a lot more subtle and nuanced than the Times admits (or understands).
Petitions are a public record, in the sense that should R-71 qualify for the ballot, I would have the right to go to the Secretary of State’s office and spend days examining the petitions by hand. But in reality, that’s not very public at all.
Personally, I would love to see petitions for all initiatives and referenda go online, both a computer searchable list of the petitioners, and PDFs of the actual petition sheets. Petitions are not a secret ballot, and were never intended to be. We have the right to petition our government, and our neighbors have the right to know who the petitioners are. Furthermore, with all petitions online and publicly searchable, I have no doubt that a significant amount of heretofore unknown signature fraud will be uncovered by citizen watchdogs.
We constantly hear from Eyman and his cohorts that there is no signature fraud in Washington state, and thus no need for reforms to identify and correct the problem, but really, how would we know when we’ve never looked for it? And honestly, why should we believe that WA is magically immune from signature fraud when it has proven to be endemic in Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Kansas, Colorado and every other state with an initiative process?
But Ryan continues…
But just because somebody signs a petition does not mean they support the referendum. People sign referendums for all sorts of reasons. It is not hard to believe that someone who supports marriage equality will sign it because they firmly believe the voters, not the Legislature, should have the final say.
People sign petitions because somebody asks them. That’s the number one reason. I know. I’ve been there, both collecting signatures, and as part of a coordinated “decline to sign” effort.
Watch the professional signature gatherers, particularly the ones collecting signatures on a number of unrelated petitions. They’ll make the case for the most sellable measure—more often than not, with lies—and then after you sign the top page and fill in your address information, they’ll quickly flip another clipboard in front of you and ask you to “please sign this one…” and “this one…” and “this one…” and so on. And more often than not, the signer will. You don’t even always have to fill in the address information on the subsequent petitions, the signature gather will sometimes offer to copy it over for you.
On the other hand, decline to sign campaigns are incredibly effective. Merely shadowing a signature gatherer, politely refuting his misinformation, and asking people not to sign, was enough to motivate most folks to walk away entirely. After a couple hours of such efforts the signature gatherer would sometimes offer to hand over the Eyman petition I was opposing, or dump them in trash, if I would only leave him alone to conduct the rest of his business unencumbered.
Yeah, Ryan’s right, that some people will sign nearly any petition because they believe that everything should come before the people, but that’s a stupid and lazy abrogation of one’s responsibilities as a citizen. It’s supposed to be difficult to get an initiative or referendum on the ballot, lest public policy billow in the fickle winds of public opinion, and thus folks should be encouraged to put a little thought into the issue before blindly signing. (Nobody, but nobody, will read the text of R-71 before signing, I can guarantee you that.) If knowing that one’s signatures will indeed become a public record—that is, a record easily searched by the public—then perhaps more folks would think twice before affixing their names to a petition that calls for taking away rights from a class of citizens?
And that, I believe… a more thoughtful electorate… can only improve our democracy, right?
Great post.
I think it’s a valuable public service to know who among us would sign up to discriminate against other Americans — intended or not.
Someone should do an analysis of how many Republicans have forced their dogs to sign initiative petitions with their pawprints. Goldy, maybe you could get a grant for this project, similar to the $225,000 grant Stefan got from King County for analyzing how many voters didn’t cheat in the 2004 election.
Nothing more effective than standing next to a signature gatherer and saying calmly but earnestly to prospective signers, “please don’t sign that, it’ll hurt me personally.” It’s constitutionally protected speech, and BONUS, I’m telling the truth. This is in contrast to the petition itself, which is festooned with lies about what SB 5688 will and won’t do.
Where’s Blethen’s editorial about this?
“The city issued about 448,000 parking tickets from April 2008 to this April, according to Murray. He said 50 to 55 officers are out writing tickets at any given moment, and each officer writes about 20 tickets daily. Tickets typically range from $35 to $44, depending on the offense. Revenue brought in from parking citations overall has increased steadily each year, from more than $14 million in 2006 to more than $17 million last year, according to the Municipal Court of Seattle.”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ory21.html
Oh wait — he has a reserved parking space at Fairview Fanny. The proletariat? Screw ’em, someone has to support the city financially. I mean, can Seattle possibly become any more car-unfriendly that it already is? 448,000 parking tickets in one year — that’s damn near the city’s entire adult population. Of course, I don’t get parking tickets because I don’t drive in the city. I don’t shop in the city, either, because it’s too hard to get around by bus with an armload of groceries or packages and there’s no place to park. I take my trade to the suburbs. Why hasn’t Eyman floated an initiative to get rid of parking meters and meter maids? He could get 448,000 signatures overnight.
I once spent two years fighting the City Hall parking ticket Nazis over a ticket on a car I didn’t own anymore. I sold it to a wrecking yard and transferred the title per state law, but that didn’t stop them from going after me when they couldn’t find the current owner of the car.
Well Goldy, I know you don’t like initiatives and referenda but this is the West and we treasure our populist traditions here. Yes, Eyman is a pain in the ass, but that’s how we do things Around Here, and we’re not gonna let some easterner tell us differently, so you’d better get used to it.
[Rabbit blows dust off paws and scratches ribcage with hind foot.]
Another tactic that works to run off signature gatherers is to sidle up to the signature gatherer, look innocent, and start by asking him what he’s collecting signatures for. Then start asking questions about the initiative. Then ask to see the initiative and, after he hands it to you, ask him if he minds if you read it. Then start arguing with him about the initiative. You should be able to keep him busy for at least 45 minutes to an hour answering all your questions and waiting while you read the initiative, asking questions as you go along, and meanwhile NO ONE signs the initiative because you’re tying up the petition sheet and signature gatherer. Of course, I’m not suggesting this as an obstructionist tactic; I simply believe in knowing what I’m being asked to sign before I sign it, and I think every other voter has a responsibility to do the same.
Unfortunately, this whosigned.org thing is overshadowing the real, reasonable and sane argument against Referendum 71 — that revoking the rights of registered domestic partners hurts real families in Washington.
Just because a family does not look like a traditional family, it doesn’t mean that they don’t need the protection of the law in matters of healthcare, should one partner have to administer the estate of a dying partner.
Death and taxes happen to everybody. There are over 5,000 registered Domestic Partners in Washington State now who will be adversely affected in their ability to run their families affairs should their rights be put up for a vote, and voted down. I know of one story of a woman, who’s life-partner is dying of leukemia. And yes, they are registered Domestic Partners in a small Washington town.
I don’t understand the Pro-Ref 71 people’s reasoning. The Domestic Partnership law state clearly that marriage is only between a man and a woman. The church needs to be secure enough to distringuish between their brand of Holy Matrimony, and the equal legal status of tax-paying, hard working families who do not look like traditional families, but need to function all the same.
I couldn’t care less about gay marriage. What 2 people want to do is their business. You know, personal liberty and all of that jazz I keep harping on.
Anyway, I wasn’t going to sign R71 until these assholes started the intimidation campaign. Now, fuck ’em. Where’s the petition?
Dilbert @ 9,
Great! Please sign it.
That way, when the scanned images of the petitions are posted on line, we’ll be able to easily ID you—the one who signed in crayon.
I don’t know whether Blethen’s correct in saying this:
But I do know that the opposite is true. I will never sign an initiative/referendum petition, even if it’s for something I support completely. Even if it’s for something I’ll eagerly support and vote for if it makes it to the ballot.
The I&R process has been so thoroughly captured by the forces of negativity that it’s irrevocably broken. It is no longer a means of improving or rationalizing government, but solely one of dismantling and hobbling it. Thank you Howard Jarvis, thank you Bill Sizemore, thank you Tim Eyman.
Speaking of which, how is it that Eyman and the GOP can “believe” that signatures scribbled on his petitions are perfectly legitimate, while those written carefully (and with credentials checks) on ballots must be challenged and attacked unmercifully?
Oh, I forgot … IOKIYAR still applies.
Step aside, sheep, and watch this shit. This is how it’s done:
Goldy! Yeah, you! I’m calling you out, punk! Do you believe the city should release the names of anyone who has either attended, or received e-mails to attend, meetings of a city-sponsored affinity group at Seattle Public Utilities — the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Transexual (LGBT), Questioning Employees and Friends group?
@9:
Well said. I think it will backfire on this “group”. Using such despicible and low life tactics to try intimidate potential R-71 signers is unacceptable. I was not going to sign, but now sure as hell will. In your eye assholes!!
LINK: http://protectmarriagewa.com
@13
Oh boy…now we’ll have two signatures in crayola!
@14 Make that three. See #12.
How about allowing initiative and referendum petitions to be signed on-line as well? If someone supports putting an initiative on the ballot, or referring legislation to a public vote, they should also be allowed to log into the Secretary of State’s website, and sign an electronic signature to a petition as well.
This would support democracy, by greatly reducing the cost of gathering initiative and referendum signatures. There are probably an equal number of conservative vs. liberal initiatives that make the ballot, so this would not favor one side or the other.
I ASKED YOU A FUCKING QUESTION, BOY!
Hello.
This puts me in a bad position. You see, I think all should have the right to marry, same sex or not. In fact, I think the people who filed Ref 71 are idiots.
But I hate the tactic the opposition is doing even more.
Pretending this tactic is anything other than what it really is delusion. This tactic is fascism, plain and simple. You would see these tactics done by Stalin’s forces, the Gestapo, and even today by the Basij. It might not be as violent, but make no mistake, it is of the same genus.
Now I am forced to choose what is more valuable to me: the belief that all should be allowed to have the same rights of marriage… or that fighting for Democracy against those who use try to impede the process through fear and intimidation is the end all be all.
If they continue this path, I may just vote for the Ref. to fight them, but it will be a bitter victory, one that I will damn myself for having to do.
I want full equality, but not at this price…
Goldshit doesn’t want a more thoughtful electorate, he wants a more fearful electorate. Typical fellow traveler.
On the bright side, if left wingnuts get their way the government will soon be in charge of your health care.
Strange you use the word “nazis” considering that seattle is under democrat control.
Make that four…
and five…
What is it about homophobic bigots and this blog?
Goldy doesn’t have the courage to answer my question.
This is nothing more than intimidation.
It is NOBODY’s business how another person votes(or in this case signs)
Just another part of democracy slipping away.
@ #18: very well said.
Why is it accepted that calling on someone and asking them why they signed a petition is “intimidation”?
Is speech now intimidation?
Seems like people think it’s an assault to discuss things with someone.
Guess what:
It’s not.
It’s speech.
And maybe it would change some minds.
Goldstein, you should be ashamed of yourself (we get to the why below).
whosigned.org is nothing but intimidation based on the modus operandi of some to intimidate people they don’t agree with. It’s nothing than creating fear by people. Not fear to voice an opinion, but fear of a nutcase or a group of nuts showing up on their door. Case in point was the recent publishing of certain houses in the Seattle area around Christmas. Fortunately the public outcry or the public opinion against it prevented some real nasty stuff…but the danger was there.
I know you can argue that everyone signing a petition should be happy to release their name to the public. This could be true in a reasonable environment. However, we don’t have this as there are enough nutcases (left and right) not being reasonable.
Let’s say I want to sign a petition for R-71 because I really don’t agree with it one way or another…but want the people to vote for it (or against it). Signing the petition might result in enough signatures to hold a public vote and put this to rest (one way or another…democracy at work). Yet, you assume that anyone signing it is anti-gay, anti-this or that and needs to be outed…and possibly intimidated.
Remeber in 1940 where people in Germany were outed too and had to wear signs: Ich kauf bei Juden ein. (I shop at Jewish stores). ?
Same process, same methods. Shame on you
Carl the Truthman:
why is it not my business if you enter the public arena and put your name on a piece of paper to get a referendum on the ballot?
To change our PUBLIC laws?
You are engaging in politics and signing a public document to change public laws. I am a member of the public. It’s all public business.
Why do you call speech and discussion intimidation? If you think speech is intimidation, why would you support free speech? You would think it’s free intimidation.
Pelletizer@2 liquid farted
Hmmm… that sounds like the latest in ACORN indictments.
Dutchy:
let’s try to reason this out okay?
“whosigned.org is nothing but intimidation” — do you have any evidence at all that people have been harassed or assaulted due to being outed on what they signed?
“based on the modus operandi of some to intimidate people they don’t agree with.”
are you making this up?
If people are assulting people or harassing them, then prosecute the wrongdoers, right?
“It’s nothing [more] than creating fear by people. Not fear to voice an opinion, but fear of a nutcase or a group of nuts showing up on their door.”
Oh so you think everyone who opposes you is nuts. Riiiiifht.
Why do you think people knocking on your door and saying “hey we see you signed this referendum. Why did you do that?”
if that’s what you call intimidation you’re crazy. That’s talking not intimidation.
“Case in point was the recent publishing of certain houses in the Seattle area around Christmas. Fortunately the public outcry or the public opinion against it prevented some real nasty stuff…but the danger was there.”
This kind of vague reference isn’t very convincing as on ehas no idea what you are talking about. Are you talking about the list of Christmas Light houses that are really beautiful?
“I know you can argue that everyone signing a petition should be happy to release their name to the public.”
Yawn, no on said happy, and what was argued was when you sign it IS public information, which it is, and which you fail to regut.
“This could be true in a reasonable environment. However, we don’t have this as there are enough nutcases (left and right) not being reasonable.”
Come on man. I ahve never, ever heard of anyone going to someone’s house and arguing with them to the point it’s harassment and don’t you know you can shut the door? And say hey dude git off ma property?
“Let’s say I want to sign a petition for R-71”
why because you hate gay people?
“because I really don’t agree with it one way or another…but want the people to vote for it.”
Very nice. Many people sign petitions for that reason.
“(or against it). Signing the petition might result in enough signatures to hold a public vote and put this to rest (one way or another…democracy at work).”
Yes, agreed, democracy at work, so what is the problem??
“Yet, you assume that anyone signing it is anti-gay, anti-this or that and needs to be outed…and possibly intimidated.” No, you ASSUME this will someone lead to this vague “intimidation” when it is more likely you don’t want your neighobors to know of your Neanderthal political views…because you are too afraid to try to justify them. Aint it?
“Remeber in 1940 where people in Germany were outed too and had to wear signs: Ich kauf bei Juden ein. (I shop at Jewish stores). ? ”
Wow, you’re really stretching now. You’re saying if the signer’s names are put on a web site the government will round them up and put you all in concentation camps and kill a few million people?
Uh, please go see a mental health doctor.
And answer this: if the government wanted to do that THE GOVERNMENT ALREADY HAS THE WHOLE LIST OF ALL NAMES SO YOU’D BETTER START BEING SCARED RIGHT NOW BUDDY!
Wow, you are just not making any sense at all.
“Same process, same methods.”
No, sir actually, talking to someone or knocking on their door is not the SAME as killing them in concentration camps and wiping out an entire ethnic group.
Do you really think the purpose here is for the the pro gay rights people to round up the petition signers and exterminate them? REally man, do see a shrink right away!
“Shame on you” for what, for talking on a blog?
Shame on YOU for putting your hallucinatory paranoias out when the truth is folks like you can’t justify yoru positions and you’re terrified your neighbors will know who you are and they will give you a nasty look as they walk by….because when you sign onto shit like this referendum you ARE being nasty and mean. And you kind of realize that at the bottom of your heart, so you are scared to be on a very public list. You don’t exactly have the courage of your convictions.
You’re basically a coward and that’s why you don’t like this. And that’s pretty unAmerican of you.
Our founding fathers put their names out in public and risked beheading. What’s shameless is you would accuse one pro gay rights group of actual GENOCIDE EQUAL TO THE NAZIS with no scintilla of evidence of even one UNPLEASANT CONVERSATION AT A DOORWAY meaning you’re a cowardly paranoid yet you are too afraid to let your signature be known. If you had an ounce of honor you would say “why yes, list my name I’m damn proud to have signed that petition because I think everything should go to a vote/I hate gays/I hate the legislature and want to express that/I think whatever.”
the fear you express is thoroughly un manly.
Dutch@25, well said no matter what Khan said @28!
Khan said
Then ask Goldy to publish your real name and IP Address for all to know.
What Ryan Blethen argues against, in part, is making publicly accessable names available on a web site. A petition is a public document, that is kind of the point of a petition. You (the undersigned) are for the action described in the document you sign.
This is the same newspaper, in the same issue, that publishes “How your lawmaker voted.”
If he is against publishing publicly available names on petitions then he should stop publishing how elected law makers voted every week. The petition is as similar enough record for us commoners as there is to the voting record.
@29
Aha, the ultimate in political argument: the “gotcha” retort: “I know you are but what am I?”. Touche, puddybuddy, you really remind me of this kid named Carl in 3d grade who went around the schoolyard with no social skills, and all he could do was slap a ball from your hands in a desperate plea for attention. Sad.
As you know, no one here puts there name out there for a variety of reasons. Your calling on someone else to do so is both changing the rules in the middle of the game and an AVOIDANCE — out of FEAR — of meeting the argument fairly and rationally. Much like that little 9 year old boy I once knew.
Puddybuddy, do you agree with Dutchy that knocking on doors and talking with a fellow citizen would be INTIMIDATING to you?
Then you get our pity for you are a coward
Do you think it’s the same as genocide?
If so, you get our advice: see a mental health professional and do it quick. We don’t want either of you too to end up pulling out your guns and shooting up a bunch of people who disagree with you politically, yet seem in your delusional state to pose some kind of threat to you. And if you have guns I strongly advise you to go give them to your brother in law for a few weeks while you get yourself checked out.
Now if you have some adult response on those points, let’s hear it. But if all you can do is say “gotcha” and “neener, neener” and “I know you are but what am I” then my advice is that you grow up.
Golly Mr Baker,
1) Puddy thought people freely choose to run for public office. Some are railroaded into running from their friends, political parties or even a blog or two
2) Puddy thought people vote for them in a democratic process. They read their positions and determine if the person’s view and promises matches theirs.
3) At the next election the electorate will determine if the elected views have changed, if their promises were kept, what were their good or bad excuses for breaking those promises and the electorate can change their vote if a better candidate appears and replace the one previously elected. In in certain case will documented here, Darcy Moonbat! never reached the threshold to make Goldy happy.
Because the person chose to run for a publicly elected office through their own free will, their votes are public record for public consumption.
Any questions?
Khan, you went into a wretched attack on dutch. If you feel so strongly about your position, then put up or shut up. Everything else you wrote is so damn stupid and funny. Dutch was talking about protesting lunatics. You know the ones who spit on you, throw ink or blood or piss on you. Maybe some HCL or H2SO4. Maybe burn down your property or firebomb it. Your good friends on the PETA, ELF, etc. front come to mind. Even Broadway Joe (another libtardo) identified the PETA tactics Khan. You must have missed it.
EPIC FAIL dude!
Puddybuddy:
just because you choose something of your own free will, does not make your choice public. You could choose of your own free will to believe that Jesus Christ is your personal saviour, puddybuddy, but that doesn’t mean you can be required to state in public if you believe that, right?
One signing a referendum petition is signing a public document, much like to run for office, you file publicly. So your analogy proves the opposite of what you contend. Do you have any other actual adult type arguments? I dn’t hear you saying “why yes, talking at my door is intimidation, it’s like an assault,” or “in fact, yes, Dutchy is right people talking at your door is akin to killing six million Jews in Europe”, so I guess you agree with me and not Dutchy on those points.
Looks like it anyway.
so, got any more arguments as to why a public signature on a public document to change a public law affecting the public should be viewed as some kind of personal private act?
Btw, I thought you guys didn’t even believe in the right to privacy and said it was all made up by the courts anyway!
Here is today’s WTF moment provided by Ghengis Khan:
Where did Dutch infer any of those moronic thoughts Khan? Where did Puddy infer them? You have an interesting fantasy mind. So you agree with PETA and ELF huh? You’ve really lost it dude.
As Another Total Jerk would say “meds”!
@17 This is for you.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com.....61ae13.jpg
@22 An initiative or referendum petition isn’t a vote, numbnuts. The petitions are public documents, and the signatures are public information. If they weren’t how could anyone verify whether an initiative or referendum qualified for the ballot? Good God, you wingnuts are thick.
@18 Ha ha ha ha, another rightwing bigot pretending to be a Democratic supporter of gay rights … my, oh, my … you guys are as transparent as cellophane. Har har har har …
@36: Another Pelletizer. Who knew?
@25 And I suppose Republicans never use intimidation to keep people from voting? Is that why you’ve had a federal injunction against your party for the last 30 years? Haw haw haw, you guys are a riot … har har har har …
@26…..the same reason that voting is PRIVATE.
Who or what you vote for is none of my business, and vice versa.
Well yes, Puddy, that was my poorly formed point, people choose to be elected, to sign petitions, etc, all public acts, all should freely be made public.
The heartburn some people have with making the signers of petitions names public, Blethen included, is nonsense.
Signing a petition is as a public act as there is for a private person, people are lending their actual names to advocate for something.
Signing a petition is not a private “vote”, but a public act by a private person to advocate for or against a cause.
As my fuzzy memory of Mass Media Law COM440 was: In this situation the signer is a limited public person, and can only be engaged in the public sphere in relation to this one act, that is: John Doe signed the petition absolutely can be reported, but not much else about the person. Even at that point a reporter has the right to attempt to engage that person to get a quote related to the signing of the petition. It is that person’s ondividual’s right to decline, and expect the rest of their life to be pretty much off limits to a reporter as long as that person was a “private person”, and not a willing participant in the public sphere, such as the case of a politician.
In the case of a politition, unlike that of a private person, the signing of the petition would not only be fair game for a reporter but could be used in constructing the nature of that public person’s identity: State Rep John Doe signed the petition. That fact could also be used in political advertising, for, or against, that person.
Well, voting and petitioning is not the same, notice how they do not use the same letters, or the same number of letters, and the order of those letters is unique to its construction, those two different words actually have two different meanings, in the dictionary and the law.
One problem with this campaign is that it does not take into account those who may sigh and vote no when on election day. I am not sure how I will vote on this, but I will sign the petition. I sign all Int and refs that come my way.
Hello.
Roger Rabbit @39:
Ha ha ha ha, another rightwing bigot pretending to be a Democratic supporter of gay rights … my, oh, my … you guys are as transparent as cellophane. Har har har har …
Roger, if I am nothing but a right wing hack, then WHY would I post the SAME EXACT THOUGHT on my personal blog, that only a few family members and friends would read?
link
I actually have a dog in this hunt, as I have family who want equality more than anything else, and I want them to have it. But again, not at this price.
BTW, thank you for proving a point that I make to people. That is if you don’t have a reasoned response to a valid argument, small minded people resort to slander. Good on ya, mate!
@46:
Well said about the HA swineflu weasel progressives. Right on dude!
Troll @ 12, 17, 22:
Goldy’s not a dog who jumps up when you holler. It’s his blog, he can talk about anything he wants to, when he wants to do it, as do all of us. If he decides not to answer you, it’s probably because he’s decided that discussions with you are as useful as trying to discuss calculus with a slug.
Seems like a good time to remind everyone of my experience a few years ago, when an Eyeman-paid initiative gatherer tried to get a Japanese national to sign his petition (it’s okay, you just sign now, you can take care of getting your citizenship later!”), and when I tried to point out that what he was doing was illegal, he tried to get the store manager to throw me off the property for “creating a disturbance”.
Ouch.
That’s gotta leave a mark.
Hell, if kahn is willing to back up his words, let him post his own name and address.
Unless he is, to use his words, an unamerican coward.
Time for kahn to step up to the plate and practice what he preaches. Oops, he’s a democrat. Never mind.
True. He’s got you trained to jump up and defend him.
Kudos to goldy on this one.
So that explains why I’m called names on this blog.
We call you a stupid goatfucker for damned good reason, Marvin – you’re stupid and you fuck goats
Heh- The stupid goatfucking Marvin, the same cowardly goatfucker who ran away from GBS by posting a California police station address as his own, now demands that someone else post their address.
What a silly, stupid goatfucker our Marvin has become!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
You make this waaaaay too easy for me steve.
Has your bigotry rotted your brain awayto the point you can’t remember or is lying the only comeback you have?
Or are you implying that bibigoober is the sockpuppet of gbs?
Thanks again for letting me prove you are a liar. I should start a “steves lie of the day” post just for you. Although, it will be hard to limit it to one a day, you give me soooo much to work with.
In case I haven’t thanked you enough, THANKS for making it so easy for someone as “stupid” as me to prove you’re a homophobic bigot.
Boy, those Blethens just keep getting dumber with every generation, don’t they? No wonder they are such fierce advocates for eliminating the estate tax. What would they do if they actually had to work at a real job? They’d be living under a bridge in less than a month.