Electing the same folks and expecting things to change is a good plan?

Good plan? No. Acceptable plan? I give you 2004.

Good for you. That statement proves you aren't what you espouse to be but rather a liar, a hypocrite or both.

Congratultions Salmo I think some have you pegged quite well!

What would really clean the clocks of everyone would be a bunch of moderate R's and D's who played to the middle, and stayed there. I can dream.

Until that happens, we'll be stuck with a crop of assclown libtards and neocons (the bad robots).

I haven't read any of this since I last posted on it, so forgive me if someone pointed out the obvious...

This guy has to act like a total asshat to get "the treatment" that he deserves...most of the RWWJ's that you guys sack-suckle deserve the same treatment when they just act in their normal day to day routine...their usual behavior is worthy of being id'd as total asshattery.

Fish on...

Todd

Violent Republican talk show host goes off on liberal.

Violent Republican talk show host

Reminds me of a Jerry Springer show that got out of hand.

RVW,

??? What do you mean? I'm more anti-Rossi than I am pro-Murray; consequently Murray gets my vote. What's hypocritical or lying about that? Seems like you're making up conclusions absent supporting evidence.

Sg

"Rossi is a land raper." Care to elaborate. I want facts. How did he rape the enviroment. Most people see rampant development and blame developers. They fail to realize that the increased density is a result of the growth management act. I hate rampant accusations that lack backing. Until all homes meet 25% of the current standards maybe we should back off new development a little. Putting new standards on new homes while requiring no retroactive improvements is just another way the "ME" generation of baby boomers passing the costs of their lack of foresite on to their children.

So just who is going to montior this, who will levy fees and fines for non-compliance, at what point will these older homes need to be brought up to "code", and who will pay for this? Talk about your unfunded mandates and government intrusion.

Electrical codes have little to do with safety and more to do with some lobbyist for a switch maker paying off someone to make everybody use tamper resistant recepticles in new homes after January/February 2009. Funny thing is my shop was completed in December 2008, and passed electrical inspection w/o issue. The I applied for my house electrical, I now had to use different plugs. So can you really say that I am that much safer because of the different plugs in the house vs. the shop? Both were code at one time.

This is just one exapmle of a code update. Imagine all of the other ones out there? Put your plan into place and these industry lobbyists would be falling all overthemselves introducing new code changes.

Show your work Krjack. Substantiate your statement.

What a sorry ass title for a topic. As if either party has any sort of corner on the stupid market.

Aunty,
Do you know start to insult when you don't have an answer. Owing back property taxes does not make you a slime, it makes you owe huge penalties. And what does that have to do with being a land raper? I can handle anything and do. Dog fish, I really don't think we need to make all code retroactive, but I do think it is unreasonable to put excessive codes when the result does not justify the cost and at the same time ignore problems that could be fixed at a minimal cost because they are grandfathered in. I worked on developing a parcel in Pierce County in which the neighbor on the far side of the property cleared a portion of the wetland back in the 1970's. The county required that we replant the section on our property, while not requiring her to do anything. All of our impact was on the far side of the wetland, about 500 or more from where any new development would take place. From the looks of it, the neighbors yard was completely wetland. My solution would have been to quit claim the section she damaged to her and the problem would then disappear, since the county agreed her actions were grandfathered. We sold the property before we finished and the new owner submitted to the county requirement. My estimate is that they spent $10,000 to replant a 5 by 100 foot section next to her yard. The rest of the developed parcel had 100 foot or bigger buffers to the wetland, but her cleared yard would flood every winter. In her defense, part of the runoff was due to the other neighbor filling in his portion of the wetland and stopping runoff. I am sure they were all there at the hearings talking about how increased development was going to hurt the enviroment. They always are.

Come on Aunty, I know you are too smart to be putting that crap out there about Dino and the back taxes issue, even the Dem Party itself has backed off that mis-statement already ...

"But according to a source intimately familiar with Rossi's business dealings, the DSCC, too, has a big, glaring problem in making that allegation. Specifically, the $20,000 tax problem that the DSCC says "Dino Rossi's firm has" is in fact one belonging to a totally different entity. Whereas the $20,000 debt is owed by a firm called Coast Equity Partners I, which owns a property in respect of which a tenant that went bust was supposed to pay these taxes, Dino Rossi is a partner in Coast Equity Partners II. Get it? They're two different firms. And the one that Dino is involved with doesn't own the property. So they aren't responsible for the back taxes. So Dino Rossi isn't a big tax cheat with ethics problems, like the DSCC wants you to believe. "


And if you are going to lay claim that Dino Rossi is a criminal, what crime did he commit? You may not like the man, but to resort to slander???? I really thought you were above that.

AM,

Since you're all about researching backgrounds look into Clint Didier and vote in the August primary. Then you can be a part of the solution to the problem of the state GOP offering up terrible candidates.

As far as Rossi goes,....I'm no fan,.....never have been. Although pointing to his business seminar on teaching investors how to buy foreclosed property, as the author of your C&P does, is no example of nefarious activity. The author talks in circles and destroys his own argument when he/she mentions that someone has to buy the properties. Rossi pointing out that it's a great time to buy and that the housing market is on the edge of fiscal disaster are two congruent statements. It's not a "one or the other",.....they're one and the same.

If your stuck on the fact that he should be convicted of a crime you really should offer some concrete proof to your claim. Working with a convicted felon does not make one a felon himself. Jus' sayin'.

I think we all agree Rossi is an asshole. So how about we get back to bashing violent Dem's. (Great name for a band, btw).

Saturday, 8am.

I wouldn't exactly call Rossi the frontrunner at this point. Not sure what information is leading you to that conclusion other than your gut feelings. Latest NW Digest poll has Didier leading Rossi by 6 points.

http://nwdigest.com/opinion/05-20-2010/washington-state-u-s-senate-gop-primary-poll/

Didier also won the straw poll at the state GOP convention.

Like I said,....no fan of Rossi, never have been. If I was faced with a choice of him or Murray,.......I'd vote for none of the above or any no name independent on the ballot. Call it a wasted vote if you will, but the only wasted vote is the one not cast.

My point earlier was that doing business with a convicted criminal does not make one a criminal himself. If the guy did his time, paid his debt to society, and is on the up and up now why should anyone assume that his current business activities are anything but above board? May or may not be the case. Just saying that if you're accusing them of criminal actions, you better have more proof than that.

Aunty,
What does "he worked with a criminal" or talked about foreclosures have to do with being a land raper? I asked a question you respond with a derogatory remark. Then you call me stupid and answer with a different accusation. Maybe if I was stupid, I would slink away. Lets look at this objectively. You don't like Rossi, so you resort to insults and accusations. You don't like being questioned on it, so you resort to insults. Questioned again you make other insults and different accusations. Are we seeing a pattern emerging?

Wasn't Rossi's largest donor the BIAW? Not that I'm against building, just against the unregulated development and building that BIAW and Rossi championed.

I listened to a Rossi interview a couple weeks back, and he was total slime, but very careful to push all the appropriate conservative buttons without actually saying or committing to anything intelligent. Murray could be defeated, but not if the Rs can only run a slimy candidate.

I never said anything against military retiree medical recipients, rather against baby boomers. Read it again, you probably need to.

I'm aware of the credibilty of the poll, or lack there of. Never did I make the claim that it was something that bears any substantial weight. I merely pointed it out as something that shows Rossi can't necessarily be considered the front runner as of yet.

Frankly I'm growing a little bored of the game you and I play. We disagree,.......that much is obvious. What the casual reader of this board would probably never realize is you and I agree on a number of issues. Make no mistake about it, the GOP has a tough road ahead in November. As you already know I'm no fan of most GOP pols. The fracturing of the party will make it difficult for the base to rally behind any one candidate. No where have you seen me make any predictions or forecasts about the GOP gaining any seats this November.

That said I'll continue to throw my support behind any GOP or Independent candidate that supports issues I feel best represent my values. If you wish to continue hurling insults my way,....have at it,.....you only reveal what a true dip$hit you are.

As far as Didier's position on farm subsidies go,......I'll offer his response from his website:

PARTICIPATION IN THE USDA FARM SERVICE PROGRAMS


Since declaring my candidacy for the U. S. Senate considerable criticism has been made of my participation in the USDA Farm Service programs. Yes, as a farmer I have been a recipient of monies from FSA programs. However, my past participation does not preclude my belief it is time to end the government farm subsidy program; let farmers become self-sufficient and build their own internal insurance and cooperative relief programs. These government programs, make agriculture an industry held hostage for political purposes.

I’ve now been farming for 20 years after retiring from the NFL. Farming can be both trying and rewarding . In l944, several USDA predecessor agencies were merged into FSA and primarily tasked with implementation of farm conservation and regulation laws around the country.

To soften crop losses when a natural disaster occurs, FSA offers a crop insurance program entitled NAP. Every year, I have purchased this crop insurance , and twice I have been paid for crop losses. In order to qualify for NAP, your Governor must designate your area a disaster besides meeting other USDA mandated program requirements. To receive 50% of a 50% crop loss (25% of the crop value), an average two-year wait is usually required. Not the greatest insurance policy ever written.

I have also participated in Commodity Credit Corporation programs created in l933 to “stabilize, support, and protect farm income and prices” through acreage payments. Our nation has always supported a cheap food policy. Some years back, when the price of wheat became too high, our government conveniently dumped government stored wheat on the market to lower market price. When prices are too low, the farmer is “stabilized” through government acreage payments –a “help” to make up what the farmer’s income should, or could, have been.

Participants certify yearly with their local FSA office acres planted and to what crop. If your current acreage enrollment is out of whack, too many acres of one commodity based on your past production, you are ineligible for participation. This allows the government to exercise control over planted acres of certain commodities.

Although the public is continually told of huge farm payments through USDA programs, what is generally not known is 72% of these subsidies are earmarked for child nutrition, food stamp programs, and temporary assistance for needy families. Perhaps the USDA Farm Bill is mis-labeled and should be called the USDA Welfare Bill. In 2002, only ll% of appropriated monies went to farmers. The other 17% went to other categories; the biggest of those being titled miscellaneous.

The American farmer is the most efficient in the world – supplying the American public with the finest quality produce, grains, fruits and dairy products. Continued government micro-management, over-regulation, and restrictive practices places our abundant food supply in jeopardy. Currently, 50% of the produce available to the American consumer is brought in from foreign producers who do not have to meet the same standards required of the American farmer as it relates to the use of fertilizers, chemicals, and pesticide applications.

In 2001, Al Gore advised a young Future Farmer of America to look for a new occupation because ALL of our food would eventually be imported. Europe realized during World II, the incontestable value of their own reliable food supply and have since jealously guarded the well-being of their food producers. Any nation dependent on importation of their food is at the mercy of the supplier.

Clint Didier
Candidate for U.S. Senate