Does Mr. Eyman also think that King county is in league with the United Nations too? Where does this paranoia about government stop?

And Mr. Webmaster, when dissenting voices challenge the John Carlson-might-makes-right mentality, do you cut off debate because the reality is too much for you to hear?

-- Neal (healingarts@emeraldnet.net), November 20, 1999

Answers

I delete vulgar postings. The rule is simple: post a vulgar posting and all your postings will be deleted. You posted a vulgar posting and all your postings were deleted.

Dats da rule.

Stick to that simple rule and you'll do just fine.

-- Webmaster (webmaster@lifetel.com), November 20, 1999.

Seems reasonable. I can abide by that. I'm kinda new at this.

My question was, what are we gonna do with all the poor people hit the hardest by 695? My tabs went down several x on a Forrester; I've got mine, but what about the rest? I assume the answer to be tough s___. The whole initiative seems picayune, e.g. mean-spririted, at times a childish exercise of political power. To me it seems that the Eymans and Westins of the world knew full well that this initiative would hit the least powerful members of our society the hardest. If the issue were presented as, let's use our taxes fairly, let's make sure that all participants in the political process have access to the power of the tax dollar, that would be one thing. It ends up as a denial of the basic realities of the day. Washington needs schools. Roads. Infrastructure. If one cuts out the common ground in a society, power only flows from the enclaves of privilege, e.g. the Medinas and City Halls. Carried to its extreme, this bunker mentality pushes us toward compounds, not cities. It creates an us-versus-them mentality where minority groups lose out to the will of the majority in power. OK, you've proven that you can cut our car taxes to $30. What about the consequences? Did you also create solutions to the problems it raises, or is I-695 only about the rights of power?

-- neal (healingarts@emeraldnet.net), November 20, 1999.

You wrote:

My question was, what are we gonna do with all the poor people hit the hardest by 695?

Like everything else in life, that all depends. Perhaps, if you could be more specific? For example: HOW were poor people hit the hardest by 695?

Not even the most desperate of the opposition campaign chose to engage in class warfare. Lie, manipulate, exaggerate yup. But not class warfare. Even they understood that the millions we spend on the poor (and it IS millions, hundreds of millions) will continue unabated

You go on:

My tabs went down several x on a Forrester; I've got mine, but what about the rest?

Ill bite what about them? First of all, I urge you, and the hundreds of thousands like you, to sooth an obviously troubled conscience by continuing to pay the high levels you currently pay for your tab fees. After all, if all of you who oppose this measure refuse to take advantage of it, why, between the extra $215 million dollars that appeared out of thin air the other day; redistributing the tobacco money and freezing hiring, there will BE no revenue shortage.

So, uh, Neal whats it going to be? You going to put those liberal principles where your checkbook is, or do they extend that far?

More:

I assume the answer to be tough s___. :

You assume correctly.

And:

"The whole initiative seems picayune, e.g. mean-spririted,

For a liberal, of course, any effort to reduce spending on social programs fits this definition.

But your response is typical of the ilk. Those of us who supported 695 are characterized as the above, as well as greedy, selfish, shortsighted, unable to understand or comprehend.

See what it got you.

You go on:

at times a childish exercise of political power.

Strange that you view the democratic exercise of an election as a childish exercise of political power.

Again, a perspective from the liberal side easily applied whenever (as they frequently are) the liberal perspective is rejected.

You further write:

To me it seems that the Eymans and Westins of the world knew full well that this initiative would hit the least powerful members of our society the hardest.

Yeah I remember Tim calling me a few years ago, and asking me, Jim, can you think of any way we can screw the poor?

And I told him, You bet! Well get rid of as grossly unfair tax, and make the lives of the poor even more wretched. Lets go!

First of all, youve provided nothing that indicates that the poor are being injured by this initiative.

Second, you assume that I am somehow rich, apparently. I believe you to be wrong on both counts.

Third, as they say, I keep more people from becoming homeless by 9 a.m. then you have in your entire life.

You continue:

If the issue were presented as, let's use our taxes fairly, let's make sure that all participants in the political process have access to the power of the tax dollar, that would be one thing. 

Olympia is right down the street from you, Neal. Get on down there and start an initiative that accomplishes what YOU want. That is, after all, how the system works, is it not?

You write:

It ends up as a denial of the basic realities of the day. Washington needs schools. Roads. Infrastructure.

Of course, nothing attached to 695 will stop any of these things from happening. You seem like a bright guy. Its a shame youve bought into the anti-b.s.

You go on:

If one cuts out the common ground in a society,

Let me get this straight. We force the government to prioritize spending, and we whack $1.1 billion out of a total budget that equals $45 billion and as a result, we are cutting the common ground in a society? Have you more fully explored this gift for exaggeration?

And more:

power only flows from the enclaves of privilege, e.g. the Medinas and City Halls.

You mean like it did BEFORE 695 passed?

And this:

Carried to its extreme, this bunker mentality pushes us toward compounds, not cities. It creates an us-versus-them mentality where minority groups lose out to the will of the majority in power.

Which has what, exactly, to do with 695?

The Seattle Times reported:

"Ironically, the strongest opponents of I-695 were those who pay the most for their car tabs, people who live on Mercer Island and in waterfront communities near Bellevue. According to a Seattle Times analysis of license-tab data, residents of those and other Eastside communities drive, on average, more expensive cars than elsewhere.

You write:

OK, you've proven that you can cut our car taxes to $30. What about the consequences? Did you also create solutions to the problems it raises, or is I-695 only about the rights of power?

What solutions do you need? Ill provide them but try and be a little more specific, OK?

Westin

"Have you emailed Rep. Fisher (fisher_ru@leg.wa.gov) to resign today?"

-- Westin (jimwestin@netscape.net), November 20, 1999.