When asked by Peter Weissbach at the Republican Picnic "What's your position on 695?" Foreman responded: "I, personally, support it."

That was played today (24 Aug) on Peter's show at 4:28 p.m.

Just another inaccuracy on the No on 695 site, eh?

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 24, 1999

Answers

Another really long reach in an attempt to discredit that site, eh?

Prior to Foreman's comments broadcasted on today's radio broadcast, I had not heard him state he was in favor of the initiative. In fact he said this just after the state GOP party voted against supporting it.

"I didn't think it was in the best interests of sound transportation policy" AP news article.

I'll note that it is now 5:30 PM on August 24. What did you do Westin, race to your computer once you heard the news? Quick, somebody changed his mind on 695 a few minutes ago and the No on 695 site hasn't changed their information yet! What a shoddy site!

Pretty sad Westin. PRETT

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.

HEY, the I-695 web site claims to have had over 500,000 people sign on to petitions, but the Secretary of State's office could only certify about 400,000! In fact, the campaign update letter dated 8/23 still claims the 500,000 number a full MONTH after the Secretary of State's office told them there was only about 400,000.

Just another inaccuracy on the Yes on 695 site, e

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.

Patrick, can you look up "cut and paste?"

Nice to know I've buried the hook so far under your skin!

The NO site is rife with inaccuracies and attempts to appeal using class-warfare tactics.

For yet another example, I failed to mention the fact that shortly before Foreman's sound bite was played, there was one from West in which even HE claimed that the funding problems caused by 695 for transportation would be "short term."

While I know that such an observation is meaningless to someone with your ability to not let the facts interfere with their positions; I know that since West was one of your gods on this issue when he spoke in opposition to it, that you'll also accept, at absolute face-value, what he said about the effects of 695 when it passes. AND, in the interest of accuracy, you'll set your fellow travelers straight when they say the opposite... you know... like the NO site does?

As for the signatures: are you incapable of understanding that SecState used SAMPLING to arrive at their signature count? That when Tim claims he turned in over 500,000 signatures he did exactly what he claimed?

Besides, Patrick, you haven't proven anything. Tim is, as you're want to say, innocent until proven guilty.

Westin

Get a grip, Pat. Remember... never let them see you sweat.

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 24, 1999.

"Get a grip Pat"

This coming from a man who rushed to his computer to post an "inaccuracy" that was just minutes old.

You're the one who claims I accept everything West says is the truth, not me. I can't help it if you have to put words in my mouth in an attempt to prove me wrong. This seems to happen every time. You make some claim that I should think a certain way, or that I said a certain thing, and then you base your argument on that entire premise. It doesn't matter to you that I don't happen to think that way, or I never said those words. As long as it helps your argument.

And tell me, if the No site is so rife with inaccuracies, then why did you decide to pick the one that is wrong only because it changed a few minutes earlier? And just where does West's comments show another inaccuracy? And, perhaps you can tell us what other factual inaccuracies there are on the site. NOT, let me remind you, the stuff that you just don't agree with, but the stuff in which some statistics actually contradict what they say.

Hey, you're catching on! It is my opinion that Eyman is making a false claim. Just like it's your opinion that the No site has a bunch of inaccuracies. Of course my opinion is based upon a sampling done by the office in charge of counting signatures and has a margin or error of less than 5%, and your's, well it's based on the fact that the No site people don't update their information faster than you can type a message here. And of course the statement of my opinion on the signatures was meant to provide an equally lame comment as yours was. Wow, you swallowed the hook, line, and sinker!

In the end, it remains that you just tried to discredit someone based upon the fact that they didn't update their site just minutes after a soundbite on a questionably rated afternoon radio talk show reversed a previous comment. Now it's just my opinion, but that seems to be a TAD desperate. But I'll let everyone else dr

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.

Speaking of inaccuracies...this is in this week's Seattle Weekly. Not exactly a shining example of wonderful journalism mind you, but every once in awhile they have something interesting to say. I think in this case their point is valid.

"Quick & Dirty BY ERIC SCIGLIANO 695 surprises

It was last January when I first talked to the engaging Tim Eyman, the cocreator (with car dealer Martin Rood) of Initiative 695, which would largely eliminate both this state's motor-vehicle excise tax and the taxing authority of its representative government. Eyman said he had scant personal interest in rolling back vehicle taxes to just $30 a year: "I've only got a dented Nissan. I pay $150 a year for tax." Now The Seattle Times reveals (in an August 15 profile) that his wife "drives a 1998 Saab that cost the couple $900 to license this year." When I asked Eyman about this contradiction, he said, "The 1990 Nissan is what I drive." But not all that he pays tax on.

The Times also quotes Eyman as saying he "can't wait" till officials lay into his initiative, which they see as a fiscal suicide pact: "The people that are going to be attacking us aren't exactly dripping with credibility. They're going to have to convince people that their car taxes aren't too high and that they're not overtaxed." Credibility? Hmm. . . . "

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 25, 1999.

Now Pat, don't have a temper tantrum!

-- hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), August 25, 1999.

I'm not hammer. In fact I've got a wonderful mental picture of Westin hearing the interview last night and tripping over himself trying to scramble to his computer to post the message.

This obsession with the web site that Westin has is QUITE entertaining. It's like something out of Melville. Maybe in the future I'll just call him Ahab, and when I want to distract him I'll call out "WHITE WHALE!"

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 25, 1999.

"I'm not hammer."

At last we agree. You are not hammer.

As to hammer's observation, he's right on the money.

Take the subject of this thread, for example. What does it say? And what have YOU said about that subject?

Nothing.

No, instead, you have childishly focused on my observation that, in yet another area, the 695 site is inaccurate. Further, having just been there, I can tell you that they have changed nothing, and they still falsely claim that Foreman opposes 695. If they gave a damn about accuracy, they would have removed his name as a supporter; done away with their lies and half-truths, and stuck to the facts. And yes, Patrick... they HAVE had enough time to do so.

That makes no difference to you at all. The only thing that matters to you is that I posted this shortly after I heard it on Weissbach's show (as if that was remotely relevant to the issue at hand) and that I have accurately attacked your hero site.

"In fact I've got a wonderful mental picture of Westin hearing the interview last night and tripping over himself trying to scramble to his computer to post the message."

Wonderful. I'm sure it's up there with your peanut butter fantasy.

Since I listen to Wiessbach via Internet, your "vision" is no more accurate then most of the rest of what you've posted. "This obsession with the web site that Westin has is QUITE entertaining."

THAT'S "entertaining? No, Patrick... you have it all wrong. Nothing beats sheer comedy value in manipulating you into yet another vapor- lock. The level of indignation you reach here when I bust your chops with your illogical and unsupported opposition to 695 has most of us in stitches!

"It's like something out of Melville. Maybe in the future I'll just call him Ahab, and when I want to distract him I'll call out "WHITE WHALE!""

Nah... actually, I liken your efforts to be much closer to that of Hedley Lamar in "Blazing Saddles." You have much in common with that character.

Westin

"Want another plate of beans, Pat?"

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 25, 1999.

Ladies and gentlemen, Westin the attempted comedian. Let's give him a hand.

He tries to make a joke out of taking a response to another person out of context!

He comes up with cryptic "peanut butter" fantasies!

For an encore he claims that these tactics "bust (my) chops" without a shred of evidence!

And for a finale, he's now trying to cover up his childish comments about how a web site was not updated after less than an hour by the always effective "I know you are but what am I?" method of debate. (Yeah Westin, it IS relevant that you are reduced to nitpicking technicalities in an attempt to discredit the site.)

Now Westin, are you going to actually come up with some credible issues, or can we continue to rely on your comedy routine that is as fresh as the jokes in Blazing Saddles are?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 26, 1999.

Patrick,

I recognize that spanking you hasn't been particularly pleasant for you, but such is the price you pay when you run with the big dogs.

As I wrap this up, the fact of the matter is that you have insisted on addressing every issue in this thread BUT it's subject... and the fact that you lacked, well, shall we say, the necessary intestinal fortitude to deal with it? Well, that speaks for itself.

It's clear that I've knocked you off stride, or else, perhaps, you'd have addressed Foreman's inteeligent decision to change his position. While I recognize that his decision to do so weakens both the "no" site's credibility (particularly since they have yet to remove his name from their site), AND yours (excepting the fact that both those behind the site as well as yourself are pathologically incapable of dealing with reality) the fact is that you have childishly insisted on focusing on those aspects that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

What I do, or don't do, will have no impact on the outcome of this issue at all. What you do, or don't do, given your delusional approach to politics, will have even less.

But Foreman's defection hurt your cause... as any adult would know. Yet, you refuse to deal with it, or the ramification of the GOP about-face on this initiative, and the resulting. even smaller likelihood that those few of you that oppose it can derail this train.

That's fine. Being young and inexperienced, its expected that you'd act in such a juvenile manner. I was hoping for something better from you, because, your attempted projection of some inate superiority aside, you seemed to have had some potential.

However, your cowardly failure to deal with the actual subject of this thread; your oft-demonstrated inability to deal with reality the way the big people do; your amatuerish attempt at transference; your knee-jerk, liberal auto-pilot response to any or all subjects, relagates you to the minor leagues.

Feel free to continue to yap around here like the pit-yorkie you are. But, given your utter failure to deal with the facts at hand, do try and control that well-known hypocrisy gene of the left, will you?

Westin

"Credible issues," indeed.

fini

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 27, 1999.

Westin, Well Said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- caroline morgan (celtic266@aol.com), September 03, 1999.

GOP May Endorse I-695 (9/16/99) State Republicans concede that if their party endorses Initiative 695, to cut car taxes, G-O-P candidates may be cut off from financial support from big business. The Republican State Committee is set to endorse I-695 this weekend at a Spokane meeting. Committee executive director Cary Evans says that could cost them 25 percent of the money contributed to Republicans in an election year. Party Chair Dale Foreman says Boeing is leading opposition by major corporations to the initiative. Boeing contributed more than 60-thousand dollars to Republicans in 1998. Foreman says other corporations will follow Boeing's lead. While many Republicans have expressed misgivings about I-695's impact on the state's economy, Foreman says lower taxes is a fundamental G-O-P position. He says the initiative will be a meaningful tax cut.

http://www.kxly.com/viewstory.asp?ID=5472&ProgramOption=News

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 16, 1999.