Typical anti-695 claptrap

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

I received this from an obvious opponent of 695.

I counted at least 30 spelling, grammatical, and usage errors.

This guy is a GREAT spokesman for his non-cause. Probably the same teacher who was holding the "AMMEND 601" sign.

I'll step aside and let his diatribe speak for itself.

-----Original Message----- From: Warner Berger [mailto:Speedyo80754@mciworld.com] Sent: Monday, October 11, 1999 8:35 PM To: josephhy@wsu.edu Subject:

You idiot I realize that this is an old statement but look around you and smell the coffee. Organized labor, and all the environmental groups have come out against this initiative, not to mention large businesses, communities, counties and the like. Of course all of these groups make their living off the backs of hardworking individuals. Get a life! Get a clue!!! If this initiative passes I hope your expensive truck falls into a pot hole and then when you call 911 because you are sick with ecoli, because there are no restaurant inspector, that you are put on hold. Just as the people whose jobs and livelyhoods will be put on hold. because of your poorly thought out initiative. Taxes worldwide are to high, but you do not lower taxes at the expense of services. Not all republicans are on your side. I have voted with the Republican party for years. NO more.

-- Joe Hylkema (josephhy@wsu.edu), October 12, 1999

Answers

The Spellmeister is offended. We need to do something about public education. It may already be too late.

-- The spellmeister (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 12, 1999.

While I am not known for my strong spelling skills, perhaps I am the wrong person to comment on this. It seems, with a few exceptions, that the best the pro-695 folks can come up with is that anti-695 folks have a hard time spell checking their posts. And for this reason I should vote for I-695?

I have seen few rebuttles for the fact that what most of us consider essential services would be cut. Aside from one post the insinuated that we really don't need the protection of police and fire departments.

I have seen no compelling reason why we must now vote to raise the license tag fees on dogs, when dog control gets otherwise too expensive. Except of course that this would probably pass since the majority of voters probably are not dog owners, as opposed to car drivers. People are always more than happy to vote for a tax or fee increase that doesn't affect them.

In short, mr hylkema, If you think that the spelling and grammer are the best arguments against your opponents positions, then perhaps you should correct the spelling and gramatical errors yourself, and then actually consider the arguments to see if they may have merit outside of the high-school english class.

For what it is worth, it is for this reason that I decline to identify my posts. When this ellection is complete, win or lose, I prefer to recede back into the background w/o having to worry about being persued for inane reasons. That and the Spammers have not yet divined my current email address, & I prefer to keep it that way.

-- Concerned WA Parent (xxx@yyy.zzz), October 12, 1999.


concerned WA parent--"I have seen few rebuttles for the fact that what most of us consider essential services would be cut. Aside from one post the insinuated that we really don't need the protection of police and fire departments."

I presume you are talking about my post in another thread. Go back and read the post carefully, after you do this I'd like you to explain to me where I "insinuated we don't need the protection of police and fire departments." Since I'm a thoughtful guy, I'll save you the trouble. . .I didn't.

My point was simply that many people are over-served with fire and police services. Looking back, it's probable I shouldn't have said this for fire services. That being said, if one looks rationally at the crime statistics throughout the US as well as the causation for the downward trend in these statistics, it's not unreasonable to state that we're over-served WRT law enforcement.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 12, 1999.


concerned WA Parent -- I hold as much stock in your opinions as I would that of a heckler in the crowd at a sports event. The strength of your opinion is directly proportion to your anonymity. Everyone else seems to have no qualms identifying who they are. Perhaps you suffer from schizophrenia, in that you actually believe any of us care enough about your opinion to pursue you.

The reality is when this measure passes, governments will simply have to reevaluate their positions and justify their expenditures to who matters most; their constituents.

You may continue to post your rebuttals here, but I doubt anyone will really care.

-- Matt (mattg@mossadams.com), October 12, 1999.


--Brad, I appologize for reading more into your post.

That said, I believe the more rational approach to eliminating police spending is to lobby your represenatives in state government to decrease police spending. If you just de-fund them in an election such as this, you have sent no message at all about what you want to elliminate. All the polititions know is that you want to pay less money.

How realistic would it be to infer that people want the police budget cut if i-695 passes? Probably not at all. In the end, it will *still* be the polititions which decide which programs are affected. All you will have succeeded in doing is limitted their ability to pay for everything, which while I understand is one of your goals, is not a very efficient way of getting government to supply the services *you* think are important.

I personally believe that the car-tab initiative was dreamed up because it was the easiest target, which benefits the rich the most. If this was an attempt to eliminate or lower the sales tax, it would be doomed to failure because:

1) It goes in small chunks, and is perceived as "less painful" than the once yearly car-tabs

2) A sales tax break would have a more benificial affect on the working poor and the benefit derived by the wealthier segments of society would not be as pronounced.

If the ballot title was stated in terms of what programs shall be de-funded, it wouldn't stand an ice-cubes chance in hades.

-- Concerned WA Parent (xxx@yyy.zzz), October 12, 1999.



-- Matt

Since it is my anonymity that offends you, I am sure that you would have no problems supporting my positions if they were voiced by a known person. Somehow, that is not a particularily compelling arguement. You will continue deride anyone who shares my opinion. You will not care if they are anonymous or not. Should an anonymous person write in support of 695, wether it is an inane attack on the spelling of an anti-695, or a substanative, compelling arguement in favor of 695, you will shout "hip hip hoorah", and "me too!" without adding anything worthwhile to the debate.

-- Concerned WA Parent (xxx@yyy.zzz), October 12, 1999.


"I personally believe that the car-tab initiative was dreamed up because it was the easiest target, which benefits the rich the most. " Yup, that's what we did alright. We dreamed up an initiative requiring a majority vote of the people for implementation that "favors the rich" cause, as everybody knows, they are in the majority. Your logic is even more flawed than your spelling and grammar.

-- The Craigster (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 12, 1999.

concerned WA parent--"That said, I believe the more rational approach to eliminating police spending is to lobby your represenatives in state government to decrease police spending. If you just de-fund them in an election such as this, you have sent no message at all about what you want to elliminate. All the polititions know is that you want to pay less money."

I agree with this.

If you read both my posts, you'll notice I don't lobby for a reduction in police services. Even though there's a rational argument for reducing the amount of police services government provides, I understand politically it's never gonna happen. The point I was making (in the other thread) is that a 13% (someone else's statistic not mine. . .YMMV) reduction in police services is not necessarily a negative thing.

FWIW, you've brought out my biggest annoyance with the PR machine opposed to I-695. They feed us these gloom-and-doom statistics without any sort of context as to what they mean. While it's reasonable to say Tim Eyman and crew do the same thing, the extreme disparity of funding and professionalism between the two campaigns (plus my own bias towards smaller government) leads me to cut them some slack.

"How realistic would it be to infer that people want the police budget cut if i-695 passes? Probably not at all. In the end, it will *still* be the polititions which decide which programs are affected. All you will have succeeded in doing is limitted their ability to pay for everything, which while I understand is one of your goals, is not a very efficient way of getting government to supply the services *you* think are important."

While I agree in principle, in reality, there are some "sacred cows" that will not have funding problems--education, roads, law enforcement, and probably transit. I agree some of them will be ground beef for awhile, but we'd probably disagree on how much and how long.

"I personally believe that the car-tab initiative was dreamed up because it was the easiest target, which benefits the rich the most."

Personally, I think the car tabs issue is incidental to the real issue--voting on tax increases. While I agree the car tax is an easy target, I don't think it necessarily "benefits the rich."

In my experience, I've noticed many younger people often buy relatively more expensive cars than older people (Army privates and Z-28s come to mind). Similarly, it's generally true that younger people have smaller incomes than older people. Given the two previous statements, it's reasonable to say the current MVET structure can be regressive. In my opinion, the best description for the MVET is not progressive or regressive, but "imprudent-gressive."

"If this was an attempt to eliminate or lower the sales tax, it would be doomed to failure because:

1) It goes in small chunks, and is perceived as "less painful" than the once yearly car-tabs"

I agree.

" 2) A sales tax break would have a more benificial affect on the working poor and the benefit derived by the wealthier segments of society would not be as pronounced."

While the above is probably true, you've not made it at all clear how it would help lead to the downfall of an initiative trying to cut the sales tax.

"If the ballot title was stated in terms of what programs shall be de-funded, it wouldn't stand an ice-cubes chance in hades."

I agree with this. This is a fascinating phenomenon. One only needs to look at the defeat of an anti-affirmative action measure in Houston to understand the critical importance of naming for the success/failure of an ballot measure.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 12, 1999.


Hey Warner:

See my new post. I just identified you.

-- Joe Hylkema (josephhy@wsu.edu), October 12, 1999.


For anyone curious about the identity of "Concerned Washington Parent", see my new post (appropriately enough) "Blowing the whistle on Concerned Washington Parent." His/her/its/??? email address is there for anyone who might want to drop him/her/it/??? a line.

-- Joe Hylkema (josephhy@wsu.edu), October 12, 1999.


All I can say is that there is some poor sap out there receiving flames intended for me. I'm afraid that any flames will have to be left here.

-- Concerned WA Parent (xxx@yyy.zzz), October 13, 1999.

Dear Mr. xxx@yyy.zzz,

You're a mouse. I'm not affraid of flame or of putting my name of what I say. You may see so for yourself at www.billsheehan.com. And if you don't like my spelling there, get an attorney.

Bill Sheehan

-- William A. Sheehan III (wsheehan@billsheehan.c0om), October 13, 1999.


Mr Sheehan,

You have me confused with one (or three) of the pro-695 folks. I have never flamed someone for spelling or gramatical errors. I believe 695 is a bad law not because of how badly it may be worded, but because of what it would do.

-- Concerned WA Parent (xxx@yyy.zzz), October 13, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ