During the Monica Lewinsky affair, the Clintonian rhetoric was that the polls show that a majority of Americans "do not want this President impeached."

Now, I-695 is ahead in the polls anywhere from 20 to 50 points. Following the logic of the Clintonistas, I am to assume that the vast majority of Washingtonians want this initiative to pass and therefore it should. Right?

-- Joe Hylkema (josephhy@wsu.edu), September 25, 1999

Answers

Wrong, The polls change as information gets to the people. You know that, of the people most likely to vote, only about 40% are in favor of this initiative. While it is popular for now, it is mostly popular among the people who like to sit around and complain about how bad things are, and not amoung people who are actually involved and do something like vote.

-- Mike Powell (mkpow62@silverlink.net), September 25, 1999.

Keep dreaming, Mike... keep dreaming.

Westin

Designer of the 20mm cannon shell fuse setter

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

Yeah, like all those Republicans in 98 who took one look at all those polls that said Americans didn't want the President impeached and figured that they were wrong. That worked well for them didn't it?

Keep ignoring those polls Westi

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

Now Patrick...

I understand your sense of impending doom, and how it makes you say many of the bizarre things that come out of your keyboard.

I don't ignore the polls. What I see is the absolute fact that NONE of them show the opposition climbing out of the 30's.... the only thing they have in common.

Again, I can appreciate your increasing level of desperation and anxiety... after all, in about 38 days or so, this thing becomes law, and many of your precious programs are going to take a dive... perhaps leading to your unemployment?

But spare us the histrionics. This thing is a done deal... and the millions of the opposition aren't going to do a thing to stop it.

Westin

Where politics is my business... my only business.

-- Westin (jimwestin@netscape.net), September 25, 1999.

Speaking of polls... isn't it amazing ho2w the net poll someone put up here seems to mirror the numbers of so many polls out there... sheer coincidence, I'm sure.

Yes - 62%

No - 37%

Westin

Many are cold, but few are frozen.

-- (jimwestin@netscape.net), September 25, 1999.

Patrick wrote: "Wrong, The polls change as information gets to the people."

Polls also change as MISinformation gets to the people. The fact is, the greater majority of people want this issue to pass. Reason: Give people a real tax cut, for which they write a cheque once a year, as opposed to a deferred tax cut, or reduction in withholdings, or some indirect cut, and they'll take it every time. Personally, I'm a big supporter of ending withholding for ANY form of tax, and going to a 'pay at end of year' in one lump sum. This would end taxation as we know it. Because everyone, especially our oppressors know that no one could possibly afford the taxes they're paying if done in a lump sum, and it would force the issue out into the open. If people really knew exactly how much they paid in taxes, we'd have a bloody, armed revolution almost immediately.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), September 26, 1999.

That is the absolute truth, isn't it. You know that the tea tax that started the Boston Tea Party was 2%? 2 PERCENT! What we wouldn't give to have as little as 2 percent taken of our wages, posessions, and lives. But it is exactly this reason why the taxes are done so sneakily. The nice thing about the MVET is that it ISN'T sneaky, and so is one of the more honest taxes we have to contend with. Do we really want to eliminate an honest tax? If MVET funds are made up for, it will likely be in the form of a more dishonest tax than the MVET currently is. So prolonging the amount of time before revolution. But Revolution will come within 150 years; I guarantee it. This will be because all combined taxes will pass 50% of the average americans income. This is already the case in NewYorkCity, where the average joe pays 51% of his salary to the government. One the reast of the country has follwed this example (and believe me, they will, you will get your revolution. But this is as much reason as any to vote a firm NO on 695. Besides - I like riding the bus

-- AbeyBaby (talgo79@hotmail.com), September 26, 1999.

Some of the reasoning here is getting a little far out. We should vote for the initiative because the alternative is a bloody revolution, and we should vote against the initiative because that will cause the revolution sooner.

The United States was formed out of a revolution, and the framers drafted a system of government that should make the need for a bloody revolution unnecessary. As long as you can vote the rascals out of office, you don't need force. A good thing too, because where force is used it makes those with the weapons the ultimate power. We don't want any military dictatorship, as happens elsewhere. For all its faults, the system has worked for longer than just about any other governmental system on earth today; and without resort to bloody revolution. Anyone who thinks that would be a good thing, needs to study a little history, or even read the world news.

This initiative is important, because win or lose it will become law unless a court finds all or part of it unconstitutional. How far would you get changing something this fundamental by initiative, in most of the rest of the world?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 26, 1999.

dbvz wrote:

"Some of the reasoning here is getting a little far out. We should vote for the initiative because the alternative is a bloody revolution, and we should vote against the initiative because that will cause the revolution sooner."

Whoa there, nelly. I never said that we would or even should get bloody revolution due to 695. I didn't even come close to that. I didn't even suggest that. I very clearly made a broader referral to the ENTIRE body of taxation under which "we the people" are currently burdened, and if, and ONLY if the gov't turned off the withholding switch, making taxation a 'pay now' system, we'd have a bloody revolution because no average citizen, even fairly rich citizen could do it. But, I don't want to repost my message, so I'll move on to your other comments:

"The United States was formed out of a revolution, and the framers drafted a system of government that should make the need for a bloody revolution unnecessary."

Umm, I'm gonna have to disagree on my, and many other's interpretation of some of the framing documents. I'll quote from the Decl. of Indep. (forgive the abbrev.):

"But when a long train of ABUSES and USURPATIONS, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

[CAPS MINE]

Now. Sure, one could argue that this doesn't mean risin' up against the powers that be. But most people who interpret the document agree that this means 'desperate measures' 'n all the cliche's that go along with it... stormin' the castle, etc. Usually, one can't "throw off" a government through a nice, peaceful signature gathering campaign, or a booth or two at your local county fair. To 'throw off' a government, probably requires some shots fired in anger, if you will.

dbvz: "This initiative is important, because win or lose it will become law unless a court finds all or part of it unconstitutional. How far would you get changing something this fundamental by initiative, in most of the rest of the world? "

And sir, I must respect you for this comment. You are absolutely correct and I strongly believe in the initiative process. If 695 fails, I will be angry, I will make snide remarks about my fellow voters, but I'll have to suck it up and enjoy it. However, as an aside, my fear is evidenced that we seem to be trying really, really hard to be just like other countries, and quite frankly, that's what's really scarin' me. We're always saying "But in Europe, they do it this way" I always say "But in Europe, they sent Jews to the gas Chamber, and still continue to engage in ethnic genocide in the former soviet republic, so, why on earth would we wanna be like Europe?"

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), September 27, 1999.

Paul,

The United States has the largest per capita prison population in the world (even higher than China or Russia), so why would the Europeans wanna be like us?

In the United States, we lovingly ate up the media's overcoverage of O.J. and Monica while much more important things -- such as the genocide you mentioned, as well as the financial rollercoaster ride Southeast Asia took during these years -- took center stage in the European newspapers. So why would the Europeans wanna be like us?

If you tell me these are "stupid" arguments, well, you'll be hard- pressed to turn around and continue to defend your own argument regarding what supposedly barbaric and unsophisticated people Them Europeans are!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 27, 1999.

Jeff writes

"The United States has the largest per capita prison population in the world (even higher than China or Russia), so why would the Europeans wanna be like us?" *Yea, when they can just slaughter a few million more and add to the 40 or so million they've already murdered.

"In the United States, we lovingly ate up the media's overcoverage of O.J. and Monica while much more important things -- such as the genocide you mentioned, as well as the financial rollercoaster ride Southeast Asia took during these years -- took center stage in the European newspapers. So why would the Europeans wanna be like us? *I guess they never say a word about Princess Di and the rest of the royal family over there.

"If you tell me these are "stupid" arguments, well, you'll be hard- pressed to turn around and continue to defend your own argument regarding what supposedly barbaric and unsophisticated people Them Europeans are!

Okay I'll tell you their stupid arguments Jeff. And please while you're at the "U" study up on history. Not that revised stuff about the US attacking Japan first, or how bad the Czar was in Russia before the revolution. But the real history of this world.

Ed - Dawg fan since '70

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), September 28, 1999.

Ed,

"The real history of the world" -- does that include the fact that every citizen of Cuba has access to free education and health care, not just "tolerated" by Fidel Castro, but implemented by him?

Why do the majority of Them Commies fawn over that evil oppressive "dictator" when their lives are obviously so wretched? Must be the brainwashing, I guess...

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 28, 1999.

Abey,

STOP SMOKING YOUR TEA!!!!

-- hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), September 28, 1999.

Jeff

Yes thats the real history Im talking about. The one where Castro implemented stealing all the land and business from the people he thought shouldnt have it and gave some of it to those he thought should have it.

And why are the happy citizens fleeing the Garden of Eden in scraps of wood trying to get to this vile country. A country where the people are too selfish to give all their money to the government who can do the right things with it.

Of course you could say that because the U.S. doesnt trade with Cuba thats keeping them from prospering. But Jeff, were just one out of many. Britain, Canada, France and all the other major countries still do, and from the pictures Ive seen of the place its still a s%%% hole.

Have any more great examples of utopian life? Please post them.

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), September 28, 1999.

What the government is trying to do is wage a scare tactic against the people. I-695 is exactly what every state needs. It will put a stop to the millions of dollars that are wasted every year in all of the construction projects. Anybody ever see 2 men working while 8 stood by and watched? I thought so. This will just make the government more accountable. They no longer will get a blank check. If there needs to be more money raised then they will have to pose a good arguement for it and let the people decide if it is necessary. Once again the power will be in the people's hands. Everybody needs to pass this in November!

-- Denver Morford (denver@foxinternet.net), September 28, 1999.

"The real history of the world" -- does that include the fact that every citizen of Cuba has access to free education and health care, not just "tolerated" by Fidel Castro, but implemented by him?"

While Chez and his ilk are on the subject of world history, let me put my $0.02 in. Chez, what I'm about to tell you is not taught in public K-12 schools. It is most likely not taught at "enlightened" institutions like the U of W.

In Germany, after the Communists came to power in East Germany, they had to erect a WALL to keep people from leaving. And if you did try to cross the wall, you were summarily machine-gunned to death. In case you're not aware, it was called the BERLIN WALL. But, by your reasoning, why the hell would they want to leave? After all, they had free medical care and education.

While we're on the subject of the Communist bodycount, in Russia Josef Stalin conservatively killed 100 MILLION of his own countrymen in a series of paranoid delusions.

Chez, think about what you're saying! What you are defending are the most brutal, oppressive, murderous, and bloody regimes in human history.

___________________ Joe Hylkema

josephhy@wsu.edu

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves."

William Pitt, 1783

Support a Husky-Free Northwest!

GO COUGARS!!!

-- Joe Hylkema (josephhy@wsu.edu), September 29, 1999.

Joe

It would seem we already have a Cougar-Free Northwest

Ed - Dawgs on a roll at 1-2 / Cougs on a roll at 0-4

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), September 29, 1999.

Paul Oss quoted the D of I, "But when a long train of ABUSES and USURPATIONS, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

I just got back to this. Sorry for the late reply.

My read is that is why they were entitled to a revolution, and a new nation. My earlier comment was about the institutions that were created through the Constitution, that were INTENDED to make that unnecessary ever again for this nation. The Civil War would have been considered a second revolution, and very bloody, if the South had won. That should make us very reluctant to contemplate a bloody revolution, and not at all as long as the existing institutions give us political and legal redress. The revolution was about taxation without representation. We have representation; federal, state, and local.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 02, 1999.