Andrew at Permanent Defense (et al) recently pointed me towards the petition for R-65, Tim Eyman’s cynical and mean-spirited referendum to repeal the gay civil rights bill recently passed by the state Legislature. Tim has a history of shamelessly lying in the headlines of his petitions… but this one’s a doozy:
Uh-huh.
Thing is, R-65 has absolutely nothing to do with preferential treatment, quotas, or same-sex marriage. The referendum would repeal ESHB 2661, which is accurately described in the small print of the statutorily mandated Ballot Measure Summary… mere inches below Tim’s intentionally dishonest headline.
ESHB 2661 amends the state’s law against discrimination to prohibit discrimination based on “sexual orientation” in employment, housing, credit, insurance, health maintenance contracts, public accommodations, and commercial boycotts or blacklists. “Sexual orientation” includes heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity. State marriage laws are not modified, employment goals or quotas are not required, nor any specific belief, practice, behavior or orientation endorsed. Religious organizations and owner-occupied dwelling units are exempt from this law.
A few weeks back I suggested a number of initiative process reforms, and near the top of the list was a proposal to ban all editorial content on petitions. Clearly, it damages the integrity of the initiative and referendum process to have sponsors intentionally mislead voters… but censorship would be impractical, if not downright scary. Thus the only way to prevent sponsors from lying on their petitions is to prevent them from printing anything but the statutorily mandated components.
In the absence of such a sensible reform, Tim is free to be… well… Tim. And so he boldly lies to voters, right there in the headline of the R-65 petition. Why? Because polls show that a majority of Washington citizens oppose discrimination… even against (gasp) gay people. If voters understand what R-65 actually does — make it legal to discriminate against gays — most would decline to sign the petition. And so once again, Tim lied.
Which of course raises a question I’ve been meaning to ask of editorial page editors around the state: “Why the hell do you still give a lying sack of shit like Tim Eyman free access to your op/ed pages?” The guy doesn’t print opinion in his guest columns… he prints lies!
Just wondering.
Eyman should go back to tax and money issues and leave the social issues alone.
This will backfire. Newspapers will start to print what he’s doing.
Goldy: Send this to all the newspapers you can. You may be able to make the story since newspapers love enemies (and who’s a better enemy of Tim Eyman than you?).
Eyman is a winger. Wingers are liars. What else is new? Goldy, look at this as an opportunity to educate the public that ALL RIGHT WINGERS LIE, ALL THE TIME!
Remember Eyman’s gambling initiative? He told a real whopper that time, namely, that legalizing casino-style gambling throughout Washington would cut property taxes $400 million a year!
Let’s analyze this. In the U.S., slot machine payouts range from about 80% (low-end) to 96% (typical Vegas casino odds). Let’s say slot operators opt for an 85% payout, and the state gets half the gross margin in the form of gambling taxes.
The math is simple. For the state to take in $400 million, based on 7.5% of gross, Washington residents would have to drop $5.33 billion a year into slot machines.
Washington has 6.2 million residents, of whom roughly two-thirds are adults (including adults confined to nursing homes). That means every adult in the state would have to spend an average of $1,290 a year on slot machine gambling for Timmy’s $400 million figure to pan out. A clearly absurd claim.
EYMAN WAS LYING ABOUT HOW MUCH LEGALIZING SLOT MACHINES WOULD CUT PROPERTY TAXES.
In all probability, the average homeowner would have seen a property tax cut of $10 to $20 per year. The voters saw through this piece of shit and clobbered it! They’ll see through Eyman’s new lies, too. And one of these days, Michael Dunsmire will tire of throwing money at a guy who consistently fails to deliver results.
How sad is it that the Republican party has sunk so low that the only ideas they have are lies and slander. Are there any intelligent, well meaning Republican’s left, or have they all been so consumed with winning and power that they have all sold their souls?
Given that the normal Republican on this board is either a mean-spirited and racist (Just another Chickenhawk), or a paranoid Freeper (Wrongboy, Ms. Chickenhawk), it is not a surprise that the entire party is sliding down hill fast. But is there not anyone here who can make a reasonable arguement on behalf of the right?
And, by the by, Wrongboy, Mark the Yellowback, Ms. Chickenhawk and Just another Chikenhawk, if you are going to be paranoid and delusional, just take drugs, at least you are not as likely to cause as much damage, and you will have a lot more fun than your sad little lives allow you now.
Question for the day. Is there a reasonable Republican blog in this state, or are they all havens for delusional paranoid wingnuts like the minnows?
Goldy, thanks for all the work you put into your blog, it really helps make the world a better place.
Referendums don’t repeal anything. They merely give the voters the chance to approve or reject a bill passed by the legislature. If R-65 gets on the ballot, a “YES” vote would enact a law to extend discrimination coverage to a very broadly based definition of “sexual orientation” — including prohibiting discrimination based on a person’s sexual behavior or manner of dressing. So stop saying that R-65 would repeal the law, when a “YES” vote would actually enact the law.
How about an initiative that would permit discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, etc. against anyone who has had, or would consider having, sex with Timmy? Naturally, this initiative would permit discriminating against Timmy himself, given his own self-love. I would think that such a law would have at least as much rational basis as the referendum he proposes.
Dear Mr. Pope @9:
(1.) If a referendum doesn’t “repeal anything”, then just what the f**k would a “yes” vote mean with respect to R-65?
(2.) You then claim a “yes” vote would “enact a law”. Would this be the very law that is now on the books that R-65 seeks to overturn? See claim you made in first sentence.
You claim to be a lawyer?
8
And if a “NO” vote de-enacts the law, how is that not a “repeal?”
10
“You claim to be a lawyer?”
He’s a lawyer, all right (http://pro.wsba.org/PublicView....._ID=765024), but that’s not saying anything. You don’t need a brain to become a lawyer. Hell, you don’t even have to be human! Washington even licenses rabbits to practice law. I’m in a position to know.
oops. comments in post 10 refer to Dicky Pope’s wierd post #8, not #9. Hey, even dead guys make mistakes.
So Richard, from your analysis we can conclude either a “yes” or “no” vote on the referendum (if it makes the ballot) would have the same effect?
Kafka would be proud!
This cannot stand!
Great Democrats: Cindi Mckinney [D-Bitch], and “Tookie” [Up Your Anal Democrat Style] Williams
If Tim Eyeman is in favor of concentration camps but opposes extermination of gays and Mexicans, does that mean he’s a moderate? Like Lieberman.
Tim Eyeman is in favor of American Gulags.
[JCH] is refuse from some jailbirds alimentary canal that his mother used to artificially inseminate herslf. Happy Birthday!
I wouldn’t buy a used Watch from Tim Eyman.
Smart move Robert, a used watch from Timmy would probably have a miniature video camera so he could watch you take a whiz
Re #8,
The referendum specifically states that it is “filed to revoke a bill that would add “sexual orientation” to the state’s law against discrimination in employment, housing, credit, insurance, and certain contracts.”
Perhaps you should let Mr. Eyman know that “(r)eferendums don’t repeal anything.”
I understand that the language of the referendum is intentionally misleading, but even you should be able to see that Ref 65 is intended to repeal ESHB 2661.
As I said, referendums don’t repeal anything. HB 2661 isn’t “on the books” yet, since it is not effective. It won’t become effective until 90 days after the legislature adjourned — a date which would be some time in early June. If Eyman gets enough signatures for R-65, then HB 2661 won’t become effective until (and unless) a majority of people vote “YES” on R-65 in November 2006.
If liberal moonbats have visceral hatred of Tim Eyman, and really believe that R-65 would REPEAL HB 2661, then be sure to go to the polls in November 2006 and vote “NO” on R-65 (just like you have voted “NO” on all those Eyman initiatives.
Let’s figure this one out logically for liberals, step-by-step:
1. Tim Eyman says “No preferential treatment, no quotas, no same-sex marriage” in his R-65 petitions.
2. The official ballot title for R-65 says “State marriage laws are not modified, employment goals or quotas are not required, nor any specific belief, practice, behavior or orientation endorsed.”
3. Therefore, voting “YES” on R-65 would result in Eyman’s promise of “No preferential treatment, no quotas, no same-sex marriage”.
4. If you oppose Tim Eyman and everything he stands for, then vote “NO” on R-65 — especially if you disagree with the headline wording on his petition forms.
You know, at this point, I’m starting to get confused, which means that most people who sign Timmy’s little Referendum will have no idea what they are signing.
Which, come to think of it, I beleive was Goldy’s point.
Richard Pope:
Where do you stand on ESHB 2661?
Should ESHB be enacted as passed, or would it be better to block by this by referendum?
It is a perfect set-up to have Tim Eyman sponsoring R-65. Gay rights opponents will be smart enough to vote “NO” in November, so this thing doesn’t become law. A lot of liberals will see that Eyman is behind R-65, and instinctively vote “NO”, just like they have for all of Eyman’s initiatives. And to the extent that middle-of-the-road voters are confused, they will vote “NO” — just like they did on BOTH I-330 and I-336.
If the liberals had really wanted ESHB 2661 to become law, they should have directly made the law into a referendum when passing it by the legislature. That way, voters wouldn’t have been confused at all — they would clearly understand what “YES” and “NO” meant when voting, and might have actually passed it.
Eyman could care less whether or not he is lying with R-65. He could probably also care less about the issue itself.
The only reason Eyman is running this referendum is to deliver right wing votes to the GOP (and McGavick) on election day, and to broaden his fundraising base to include more angry old white people who think this country went downhill when it started granting women, minorities and gays equality under the law.
The only reason Eyman is running this referendum is to deliver right wing votes to the GOP (and McGavick) on election day, and to broaden his fundraising base to include more angry old white people who think this country went downhill when it started granting women, minorities and gays equality under the law.
I must mildly disagree. Eyman is the personification of selfish politics. He is in the initiative business to make money, as much as he can. He doesn’t care about delivering votes to other candidates or causes. His only cause is his bank account. Ascribing any motive other than greed to Eyman is unnecessarily generous, in my opinion.
If the liberals had really wanted ESHB 2661 to become law, they should have directly made the law into a referendum when passing it by the legislature. That way, voters wouldn’t have been confused at all – they would clearly understand what “YES” and “NO” meant when voting, and might have actually passed it.
Interesting analysis. So what you’re arguing is that the majority of Washington’s citizens actually prefer ESHB 2661, but they will be so confused by Eyman that they will vote in opposition to their actual desires.
But Eyman isn’t trying repeal anything with Ref 65. Nope. Nosiree.
I think the definition of “sexual orientation” in ESHB 2661 goes way too far, when it allows complete freedom for sexual behavior and manner of dressing. Eyman says no other state has such a definition in their laws — and he may be right. (If he isn’t right, please provide me with the state and the citation to their statutes.)
I do know this definition is quite different than what has been used in all the other bills that were introduced in the last 30 years. So why did they extremely broaden the definition this year?
Under ESHB 2661, people and entities covered by the law (which includes government, schools, housing, stores, employers, etc.) cannot discriminate on the basis of gender-related behavior or expression. So how is an employer going to be able to fire a sexual harasser, if their offensive conduct merely consists of words (as opposed to physical assault)?
ESHB 2661 also prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender-related dress or appearance. Anyone can say that their method of dress or personal appearance is a matter of gender identity or expression for them. So how can a school (or employer) for that matter enforce a dress code? Or what about “no shoes, no shirt, no service” signs in so many establishments.
The legislature should have stuck with the time-honored definition of “sexual orientation” which has traditionally been offered (and is used by every over state with such laws). They should have also offered ESHB 2661 for a public vote from the get-go.
“Diversity” is state sponsored hate. Pure and simple. You idiot fucking moonbats are too stoopid to see it. Diversity as practiced now gives preferential treatment. Preferential treatment for any reason is wrong, but to get preferential treatment because you prefer taking it up the ass is fucking ridiculous.
At least Tim and his supporters have the MORAL CLARITY to see through it and call it what it is. Enough of this bullshit.
Interesting how it seems the only way to defend a lie is by telling more lies.
Mark The Redneck is just spoofing us, right? I mean – that’s why he talks about eradicating all Muslims and Arabs, right?(somehow calling Tim Eyman’s efforts “moral clarity” seems even more far-fetched!)
Mark the thieving Redneck @ 32
‘“Diversity” is state sponsored hate. Pure and simple.’
Bullshit!
And, MTtR, when are you going to make good on your bet? I recommend that you not post again until you do (it will minimize the disgrace).
Re Mark at 32:
I am seriously trying to understand your point, but I’m failing. How does diversity provide preferential treatment? WHAT preferential treatment? Can you please be specific and spell it out for me? I guess I am “stoopid,” but I honestly don’t understand.
Oh come now Richard, you know that you are exagerating. Sexual harrasment is in no way a gender expression. I am pretty sure that someone already tried the ‘Im a guy and guys act this way’ defense. Noone is buying it.
And since gender is already protected, how do employers enforce dress codes now that are gender specific? Lets face it, employers who require suits for men and dresses for women already are on the shady side. Half the reason kilts sell so well in Seattle are to folks waiting for an hr department somewhere to make a multimillion dollar mistake.
And what gender, do you suppose, might express itself in such a way as to disallow “no shoes, no shirt, no service” signs? You really are making shit up, and the worst part is you know it.
What, youve got no argument so you whip out a tar brush?
23
Richard’s onto something, all right. No doubt Eyman is counting on all the gay rights supporters to vote “No,” thinking they’re voting against his initiative when in fact they’re voting against gay rights. This could backfire on him, though. Liberals, who are light-years smarter than redneck rightards, will all vote “Yes” and all the trailer park idiots will vote “yes” too, thinking they’re voting FOR the initiative. In Timmy’s Alice-in-Wonderland initiative world, where everything is backwards, upside down, and inside out, R-65 will get about 6% of the vote.
And then Michael Dunsmire will cut off the money and Timmy will have to make his living selling watches again.
Richard Poop @24
Hey Dickie, did you learn in law school what the word “irrelevant” means?
27
“It is a perfect set-up to have Tim Eyman sponsoring R-65. Gay rights opponents will be smart enough to vote “NO” in November, so this thing doesn’t become law. A lot of liberals will see that Eyman is behind R-65, and instinctively vote “NO”, just like they have for all of Eyman’s initiatives. And to the extent that middle-of-the-road voters are confused, they will vote “NO” – just like they did on BOTH I-330 and I-336.”
You’re assuming the average grade-school-dropout wingnut is smarter than the average college-educated liberal. That’s a BIG assumption. You’re a brave man, Richard. So is Timmy. Or perhaps you’re a pair of dopes who don’t know any better.
29
Greed explains almost everything Republican.
31
Richard, do you know squat about sexual harassment law? Don’t answer, you’ll only embarrass yourself.
32
According to Rakeface, being a slave was a privilege, and getting whipped by your master was preferential treatment. He probably thinks the Jews got special treatment at Auschwitz, too.
Rakeface preaching about “moral clarity” is like Ted Bundy lecturing us about avoiding serial killers.
Laura – You obviously don’t live in the real world. Let me explain….
While “diversity” sounds good on its face, there is an ugly backside to it that includes “compliance”. And with compliance comes “compliance metrics” in order to prove that a corporation or gummint entity or anybody else is in compliance with the law. Presto… you got quotas. And those same organizations who are run by nazimoonbats go out of their way to make sure their metrics look good to the complete exclusion of any other personal characteristic. Corporations don’t give a fuck if “protected class” people are worth a shit… they just want ’em to show up frequently enough to stay on the payroll so they can use them to meet the diversity compliance metrics.
In the meantime, this kind of crap makes The Producers really angry. The Producers work their asses off, yet because their pigment, plumbing, or fucking preferences aren’t the “protected” ones, they end up not getting appropriately rewarded for their contribuions. As soon as the link between compensation and contribution is broken, the whole system breaks down. Why the fuck would anybody want to bust their ass when there’s no reward?
What is morally wrong with wanting to exterminate those who want to kill us? Seriously… WTF is wrong with that?
Hey Wabbit – You know labor law. So splain to the moonbats here about “protected classes” and “adverse impact” and “intentional discrimination”. Explain what OFCCP does. Explain how lawyers come into court armed with spreadsheets full of numbers showing quota compliance.
This kind of shit happens every fucking day in Murka.
Mark the Yellowback:
It happens every day. Give one actual instance in the last month. There should have been at least 30 cases by your reckonning.
However, if you simply assume that any women or black person hired was hired because of quotas, not because they can do as good of work as a white man, well, that is really pretty racist, isn’t it? Happens every day. Want an example?
ALERT
Fox News Reporting that Tom Delay is withdrawing from his race for Congress.
Hmmm….,
Wonder who is about to be indicted.
ALERT!
Delay Stepping Down!
Actually, it appears that Time had it first:
http://www.time.com/time/natio.....38;e=50319
Richard Pope,
The Association of Washington Businesses asked for that additional langauge to be in. They were at the committee meeting for 2661 in the house. The Democrats compromised and put it in.
I think the point was to clarify the language so business owners could be sure what they could do and not do.
And now thats the only reason any right winger can actually oppose this while still being “politically correct”.
If that’s the best you can do, then you’re pathetic. You’re being partisan for the sake of being partisan.
48
Hey Rackface, if you want me to be your lawyer and give legal advice, you have to pay me!!!
Who’s asking for advice? Last fucking thing I need is advice from the likes of you. I’m just asking you to “educate” the moonbats here about state sponsored hate.
Nice attempt to duck the real issue though… that always happens because I’m right all the time.
Just for the hell of it though… can you call me a chilling morally repugnant nazi?
Also… I never did get an answer from you kooks on this whole “chilling” thing relating to wiretapping. YOu said it was chilling for GWB to tap terrorists. But Baghdad Jim said it was chilling to NOT tap. Which is it?
MTR – You are a bet welsher. There is no lower form of life on this planet. You are slime. In fact you are beneath slime. Slime is advanced life compared to you.
If you make good on your bet with Goldy – that you LOST – you may have a shot at redemption. You may be elevated to a run-of-the-mill brainwashed wingnut – a level about equal with slime.
This is better than being “low-life” compared to slime.
Mark the Thieving Redneck,
Here is some advice: Make good on your bet with Goldy, or don’t post here.
You are, essentially, stealing from Goldy, you fucking thief.
MTR said What is morally wrong with wanting to exterminate those who want to kill us? Seriously… WTF is wrong with that? I guess at times it would be ok. Like if anyone came to exterminate you I don’t think a single person in the entire world would give a rat’s ass. Pay your losing bets, ignorant little prick.
re 32; great attitude! Now see if you can apply it to its proper target: the Grover Norquists of this world.
-What is morally wrong with wanting to exterminate those who want to kill us? Seriously… WTF is wrong with that? –
Interesting that MarkTheRedneck’s reactionary extremist counterparts on the other side of the globe are using THE EXACT SAME argument to foment hatred against the west.
Fact is, reactionary Islamists and reactionary right wingers basically need eachother to exist. And thanks to George W and his crusading minions like MTR, the cyle of violence and ignorance will be continued for generations to come.
It’s abusurd for MTR to claim “all Muslims” want to “kill us.” Yet, in making such absurd claims, these paranoid freaks are able to justify their pathetic existences and insane ideology for yet another day…..
Gerald @ 52
The language I am talking about was in the original version of HB 2661 as introduced and remains in the final version.
I know of what you speak. The AWB asked for it to be in there before session, but commented on it during the committee meeting. If you listen to it… I believe around 45 minutes into the meeting a representative talks about it.
To say anything else than “Tim Eyman is a lying sack of shit” is to be untruthful.
Copiously note how Dino Rossi, Mary Lane, et al have distanced themselves from the McKinney of state politics…