No blogging from me until the weekend. I'm helping chaperone the entire 5th grade class at my son's school on an overnight field trip to Olympia.
So, if you hear of any reports of a student being hung by their ankles on the exterior of the State Capitol dome it's probably me.
And if any additional legislators want to stop by Senate Hearing Room 1 between Noon and 1pm on Thursday to speak to a bunch of kids from south Snohomish and north King counties you're guaranteed a nice plug here at Sound Politics - Republican and Democrat alike.
In the meantime, behave.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 20, 2008 10:41 PM | Email ThisHave fun!
Posted by: Jeff Thorp on February 21, 2008 05:49 AMHave fun!
Have fun!
Posted by: Jeff Thorp on February 21, 2008 06:08 AMHave fun!
Posted by: Jeff Thorp on February 21, 2008 06:13 AMHave fun!
Oh, and good one, Duffman, lol.
Posted by: Jeff Thorp on February 21, 2008 06:26 AMKeep it up and I'll go over to HA and post as many fake post as I can under Rabbit's moniker.
Just kidding.
For heaven's sake, when you liberals play these games it only confirms what we already know about you.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 21, 2008 10:13 AMHow do you know the person doing it is a liberal? Who's to say a true conservative would not jump at the chance to make fun of a token Liberal like Duffman?
Bill, it's always amazes me how you can take a friendly discussion and politely spin it into some liberal conspiracy theory.
If you want to call my observation a "liberal conspiracy theory", go right ahead.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 21, 2008 03:38 PMIf so, what do you think?
What if I want to call it "Bill Cructon's Liberal Paranoia even though a Conservative could easily do the same thing Theory"? Would that work as well?
At least I'm "paranoid" about what liberals actually do.
I find liberals to be "paranoid" about conservatives and Bush "imposing a theocracy" on the country and "taking away our rights". I'm sure you don't believe any of that, Cato.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 22, 2008 06:54 AMHey wait, I can blame liberals after all. They are the people that have flooded the area and caused a shortage of housing!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 22, 2008 07:03 AMNot only have liberals flooded the area, they have the greater incomes that enable them to pay the higher housing prices!
Bottom line - I think an analysis that does look at the cost of regulations (in detail, not in aggregate) would be interesting and helpful. This study wasn't that animal.
So let me get this straight, you saying it's OK to violate say the Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment as long as it's a conservative President thats doing it?
They are the people that have flooded the area and caused a shortage of housing!
Now your against the basic principle of supply & demand?
Gosh Bill, your really going out on a limb here.
Posted by: Cato on February 22, 2008 09:27 AMUh, Cato, I was kidding.
How come you don't want to address your lefties in Olympia proposing to limit the amount of miles we are allowed to drive?
That seems a lot more important than some imagined violation of the Fourth Amendment. This ain't imagined, buddy. This is what your side wants to impose on people.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 22, 2008 01:35 PMWe don't know who's rights have been violated because it's classified, I have no doubt it could have been an American citizen. Maybe they we're spying on US Citizens without a warrant? Why couldn't Bush Co. get a warrant from the US Kangaroo Court? They obviously must have had probable cause to break the law right?
I guess we'll know in 50 or so years when the information becomes declassified.
How come you don't want to address your lefties in Olympia proposing to limit the amount of miles we are allowed to drive?
Since I have not read the bill, or heard anything about it my response would be "I'd like to see them try and enforce that". I don't foresee a time in the state where someone will pay a fine (other than say a speeding ticket) because they drove to visit their sick Grandmother in Pocatello who had a heart attack. Not going to happen.
People propose silly bills all the time (like the guy who proposed an income tax), unless they are actually passed into law they are meaningless.
That seems a lot more important than some imagined violation of the Fourth Amendment.
So what your saying is that some Amendments are more important than others?
I think you'd be hopping up and down mad if there was such a blatant violation of the 1st or 2nd Amendments.
What a great, classic dodge "the information is classified"
You haven't got poo-poo.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 22, 2008 02:50 PMAnd you talk about "liberal paranoia"? What exactly Cato, are you exhibiting here?
This is just too much fun.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 22, 2008 03:10 PMWhy is telling you the truth a dodge? Are you not aware that the EFF has tried to obtain this information? Oh look, here is the Govt. asking for a dismissal of the warrantless wiretapping case on the ground that claim the information is classified. Funny that.
Meanwhile, FISC says Bush Co. cannot tell us if they spied on an US Citizens because of it's "vitally important need to protect national security". Hmmm, that seems pretty classified to me.
You have Bush Derangement Syndrome. You simply believe what you believe because you hate George W. Bush.
It seems you seem to be the one in error here. See the facts I have presented above.
Now if you have proof that I "hate George W. Bush" I ask you to present it. If you cannot I would argue that you are the one suffering from a form of paranoia. Especially given the fact you lay the blame on "liberals" in the form of baseless accusations.
"Now if you have proof that I "hate George W. Bush" I ask you to present it."
How about when you refer to Bush as "Bush Co."
Need I present any more evidence?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 22, 2008 04:30 PMHave a fun trip with the kiddies, Eric.
Posted by: ferrous on February 22, 2008 04:47 PMPlease explain how a PDF of a legal brief filed by lawyers representing the US Government claiming that the information is Classified not proof? I look forward to hearing that one.
While you are at it explain my citation of a Washington Post article reporting on a FISC decision that is public record is somehow a "far left" website?
I gave you verifiable "proof", and you dismiss it. How can one argue with someone who refuses to believe the factual evidence presented to them? I believe society calls those type of people ignorant.
How about when you refer to Bush as "Bush Co.
Would you rather I refer to the Bush Administration as Bush et al? I doubt people would believe that a single abbreviation indicates a "hate" for George W. Bush on my part.
All of this great secrecy that you cite in your Bush paranoia is to what end? A Bush dictatorship? It's just the silliest kind of leftist nonsense.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 22, 2008 05:26 PMYour paranoid view of the Bush Administration is founded not on fact, but on the bitterness you've harbored since his election in 2000. A year from now Bush will not even be President. Grow up.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 22, 2008 05:53 PMIf you don't like what Eric posts you can either agree, disagree, or ignore the posts.
Or you can use the public blog. It's up to you.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 22, 2008 06:15 PMUh huh, you keep telling yourself that. Violating the Constitution should be considered a serious offense. Can you tell me why the Bush Administration can't be bothered to get warrants from a court that has modified a total of 178 warrant requests in 30+ years of existence?
I guess you've forgotten the thousands killed on 9/1/2001. Does it ever occur to you that what you call "Bush Co." might be doing its best to prevent that from happening again?
In 2006, 17,602 people died from DUI accidents. In 2001, 17,400 died from DUI related accidents. Only 2,801 died as a result of 9/11. Seems to me the DUI is a much bigger killer than terrorism.
I notice you avoid mentioning the unborn children murdered by abortion.
Again, the only reason you're all worked up about Bush "violating the Constitution" is your hatred of Bush. If a Democrat was President we wouldn't hear a peep out of you regarding this issue.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 25, 2008 01:47 PMYour right, I did...how observant of you.
If a Democrat was President we wouldn't hear a peep out of you regarding this issue.
Sure I would, I dislike it when any President subverts the Constitution.
Besides, if a Republican we're say violating the 2nd or 3rd Amendment you would be perfectly fine with it as long as it was under the guise of protecting the USA from Terrorism.