March 06, 2014
Federal Way Intrigue - Miloscia Switches Parties, Challenges Eide for Senate Seat

The Federal Way-centered 30th legislative district will host a fascinating legislative race this fall. Former Rep. Mark Miloscia, who represented the district as a Democrat for fourteen years, announced today that he is switching parties and running for the 30th's state Senate seat.

The current senator, Tracey Eide, has indicated she will run for re-election, but rumors have swirled around her (as they seem to every four years) that this may be her last term. Miloscia's announcement may extract a more definitive statement out of Eide.

Miloscia's political positions don't line up neatly with either party, a fact he is already using as a selling point to voters. "The most important thing is to independently represent your district and not to follow orders from the party bosses or special interests," Miloscia said in his announcement press release.

He stood apart during his tenure in the House as a Catholic, pro-life Democrat who supported performance audits and was skeptical of tax increases. He was a strong advocate for new housing and support for the homeless and scored a 91% on labor-backed issues. He gave up his House seat in 2012 to run for state auditor as a Democrat, but did not clear the top two primary.

Taxes will no doubt emerge as an issue in the race. "I would not vote to make it easier to raise taxes when the district voted repeatedly for a two-thirds majority requirement," Miloscia said. The last time the two-thirds requirement was on the ballot, as Initiative 1185 in 2012, 30th District voters approved it with a 67.7% vote.

Miloscia had one of the more unique resumes in the legislature. He earned an engineering degree at the Air Force Academy, served as a B-52 pilot, and later, as he put it in his release, "audited billion dollar contracts to prevent waste and abuse" in the Air Force. He received an MBA from the University of North Dakota, attended Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government (as did Eide), and worked as a substitute teacher outside of session.

The 30th District is an interesting battleground. Miloscia and Eide were both first elected to the legislature in 1998, after which Eide was re-elected three times to the Senate and Miloscia six times to the House. In the 2012 election, Republican Katrina Asay lost her House re-election race to Democrat Roger Freeman, while Republican Linda Kochmar won her campaign to succeed Democrat Miloscia.

Miloscia said of his party switch, "Today, it's the Republican Party that offers a big tent, welcoming different views, from moderates like Secretary of State Kim Wyman and Senator Steve Litzow, to conservatives in Eastern Washington. Washington State Republicans don't insist that everyone believe and vote exactly the same way to run for office."

Federal Way and the 30th District have seen some high-profile party switches in the past. In 2009, Republican Rep. Skip Priest won his race for Federal Way mayor, a non-partisan position, against city councilmember and Republican Jim Ferrell. Ferrell later announced he was switching parties and went on to defeat Priest in a rematch last fall. In 1981, Democratic Senator Pete von Reichbauer famously walked into the Republican caucus and announced his switch, changing the partisan control of the chamber to a 25-24 Republican majority.

The legislature hasn't seen many party switches since the Republican Revolution in 1994. The last party switch was current Senate Majority Leader Rodney Tom's switch from Republican to Democrat in 2006.

Posted by Adam Faber at March 06, 2014 01:29 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Smart move for Milsocia.

Its hard to run as a Democrat these days and becoming more and more difficult as all of bongo's programs and policies fail miserably.

Welcome Miloscia, you will be among much smarter but most importantly honest and principled people.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 6, 2014 05:26 PM
2. He was a B-52 pilot? My condolences!

Posted by: Ten Years After - Roger Rabbit is just a liberal progressive troll. THERE, FIXED! on March 6, 2014 05:55 PM
3. Miloscia is a good guy. After listening to him speak at a debriefing last year following a particular bill's committee hearing, I wondered to myself "Why is this guy a democrat? He's too decent. Cares about life, traditional marriage and oozed common sense." This move makes all the sense in the world to me, having gotten a sense last year of what he's really about.

Go get 'em, Mark!

Posted by: Monterey on March 6, 2014 09:19 PM
4. This will be a trend. Demographics do not favor Dems.

I remember when I grew up and left Democrats. Their platform sounds great until you realize that somebody has to pay for all those big plans. It is just not scalable. 65,000 Boomers "retiring" each day. And at the same time they are killing off their base with abortions and a child free culture.

The gravy train is going to run out for Dems.

Posted by: Leftover on March 7, 2014 11:21 AM
5. BTW, info shows angry anonymous comments bad for your health. Heads up tensor, MBS, demo kid, Amused, Mike, Rags.

Posted by: Leftover on March 7, 2014 11:36 AM
6. At # 5,

"BTW, info shows angry anonymous comments bad for your health. Heads up tensor, MBS, demo kid, Amused, Mike, Rags.

Point taken there Left-over.
Next time I write such angry anonymous comments as "Smart move . . . Welcome Miloscia . . . , hard to run as a Democrat, and fail miserably, " I will think it over more carefully. [not]

Oh wait , was "[NOT]" angry and anonymous?

Any notion what "painting with a wide brush," means? If you can't tell the difference between rags and I and the others you are one of the others.

Oh gee, was "others" angry and anonymous?
Very amusing.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 7, 2014 12:40 PM
7. @6,

Do not take it personally. For you I would say less anonymous, but more angry. For those under Obama's spell who comment here, often more anonymous and even more angry. Just pointing out that there does seem to be a lot of anger. I am very disturbed and disappointed with most of the President's policies, but I do not think anger is the best outlet. Because when one is angry, the problem usually still exists. Best to spend energy on the problem and not the anger.

Here is to every commenter's health.

Posted by: Leftover on March 7, 2014 01:09 PM
8. "Its hard to run as a Democrat these days..." because most of our state's elective offices are already held by Democrats.

It's the same logic which produced Republican Gov. Schwarzenegger and Republucan Mayor Bloomberg. The Democratic Party owns California and New York City, so those two political liberals ran as Republicans. (The real-life "Nucky" upon whom Steve Buscemi's character in "Boardwalk Empire" is based was a Republican for the same reason.)

Party-switching legislators usually have more power when the other party has the majority (the Rodney Tom occupation being a particularly nasty version of this) so Mr. Milsocia may be betting on serving in a Democratically-controlled chamber.

Posted by: tensor on March 7, 2014 04:13 PM
9. .
Before we all get excited about a 14 year Democratic legislator leading the way to a Republican victory,

State Rep. Mark Miloscia to run for state auditor

September 15, 2011 at 3:58 PMState Rep. Mark Miloscia, D-Federal Way, announced Thursday he's running to replace Democratic state Auditor Brian Sonntag in 2012.

Sonntag earlier this week said he plans to step down at the end of his term, after serving 20 years in the office.

Miloscia surprised a lot of House members last year when he sent out a news release criticizing his caucus leadership and announcing a bid to replace Rep. Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, as speaker of the House. He failed in that effort.

So, while we applaud Washington State Republican Party chairman Susan Hutchison's understanding that the best (only?) way for Republicans to win in Washington is to run career Democratic politicians, this backbencher with aspirations beyond his abilities is not likely to move the ball very far forward.

Y'all didn't vote for him in 2012 and you aren't going to knock doors for him in 2014.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 7, 2014 04:55 PM
10. At # 7,

Hello o o . . .
This thread is about Mark Miloscia changing parties.

Now by golly whiz I'm just chapped to beat the band . . . at you writing that I "personally"am somehow "less anonymous, but more angry."
How can you say such vicious things?

It would be better if rather than displaying your anger attacking me with personal venal invective you addressed the issue. :>)

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 7, 2014 05:15 PM
11. @10 Confused by Everything on March 7, 2014 05:15 PM,

Let's face it, Miloscia isn't interesting to anybody.

But, hey, you keep showing your leadership skills by staying on topic yourself!

ps. Loving your BOLD integrity to principle!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 7, 2014 05:26 PM
12. At # 9,

" . . . backbencher {Miloscia] with aspirations beyond his abilities is not likely to move the ball very far forward.

No one -- especially not a lunatic like you -- has any idea what Miloscia's abilities are yet especially when surrounded with honest decent conservative colleagues.

Y'all didn't vote for him in 2012 and you aren't going to knock doors for him in 2014.

There is a reason for that genius.
Three guesses?

Miloscia will get plenty of support not only from conservatives and moderates, but thanks to utter failures on all fronts by bongo and his ilk, and the resulting removal of all doubt that liberalism is a farce, other leftists will also cross the line for Mark.

Being a consistently dimwitted moron, it is not surprising that you missed the easy facts but . . . for "leftover's" sake . . . only in the nicest (un-angry) possible way.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 7, 2014 05:44 PM
13. Miloscia said of his party switch, "Today, it's the Republican Party that offers a big tent, welcoming different views, from moderates like Secretary of State Kim Wyman and Senator Steve Litzow, to conservatives in Eastern Washington. Washington State Republicans don't insist that everyone believe and vote exactly the same way to run for office."

Ugh. I am shocked that Adam doesn't feel he's reached career rock-bottom for repeating this bullshit. Conservative, liberal, whatever... this is a stupid press release, with no weight, substance, or analysis whatsoever.

When Adam started on this site, I actually held hope that at least Adam would be able to present a more insider (albeit conservative) perspective on the issues. While I'm not really sorry that this site is dying a slow and painful death, I'm truly sad over the wasted potential.

That being said, I do want to learn here.

What exactly does Miloscia have to gain from a party switch right NOW? I don't live in Federal Way, but any insight would be welcome. As much as completely brainless types like Confused by Liberals would like to spout boring delusions and throw in some racist slurs at the same time, there are practical reasons that are far more likely. Was it a fundraising gap? Ongoing tension with the Democratic leadership that spilled over recently? A crowded lineup on the Democratic bench? A means of getting leverage on key issues and pet projects?

@4: This will be a trend. Demographics do not favor Dems.

Hardly, in part for the reasons that you stated right after. As senior citizens and Baby Boomers start dying off, folks overall delay marriage and get a college degree more often, and minority voters become a majority, the current makeup of the Republican Party is challenged. Demographics suggest that both the Democrats and Republicans are due for massive, tectonic shifts in party platforms and reliable bases.

For me, I'd hazard a guess that in the future, social issues like gay marriage and abortion subside significantly as the wedge issues between parties, with economic issues becoming the real driving factor between the two.

@10: It would be better if rather than displaying your anger attacking me with personal venal invective you addressed the issue.

Great advice that you should probably take.

Posted by: demo kid on March 7, 2014 06:32 PM
14. "No one [silly name-calling deleted] has any idea what Miloscia's abilities are yet ..."

If only he'd served in public office for more than a dozen years, maybe some one would have some idea. (Amused would probably not be that some one, however.)

"... especially when surrounded with honest decent conservative colleagues."

No one by that description served in our state House for fourteen years, apparently. (I don't know if even Seatlle's liberal Democats would be that dismissive.)

"Miloscia will get plenty of support not only from conservatives..."

You going door-to-door for him this year?


Posted by: tensor on March 7, 2014 06:33 PM
15. @12 Confused by Everything on March 7, 2014 05:44 PM,

And what has the anti-choice Democrat, Miloscia, delivered to Federal Way, the 30th legislative district, or Washington in 14 years that has you chomping at the bit to go door-to-door week nights and weekends in the rain?

ROTFLMAO!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 7, 2014 06:45 PM
16. At # 13,
"What exactly does Miloscia have to gain from a party switch right NOW? "
He can win and he can do positive things for our state.

At # 14
"You going door-to-door for him this year? "
I may.

At # 15,
"And what has the anti-choice Democrat, Miloscia, delivered to Federal Way, the 30th legislative district, or Washington in 14 years that has you chomping at the bit to go door-to-door week nights and weekends in the rain."

He had the good sense to come over to the right side.

BTW at # 10,
"Let's face it, Miloscia isn't interesting to anybody.
He interests you enough to bother commenting. Or are you just bored with nothing else to do in your cell?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 7, 2014 07:01 PM
17. @16: He had the good sense to come over to the right side.

Please. If you really, truly believe that, you really are a sucker.

Posted by: demo kid on March 7, 2014 07:06 PM
18. At # 17,

Given the positions and rhetoric you have burped up here over time combined with current affairs and the people elected by the other side (esp bongo), I take that as a compliment.

Thanks and right back at you.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 7, 2014 07:12 PM
19. @18: Given the positions and rhetoric you have burped up here over time combined with current affairs and the people elected by the other side (esp bongo), I take that as a compliment.

It has nothing to do with your foul racist bullshit, and everything to do with the fact that politicians of all stripes act in their self-interest. If you cannot recognize that, you're a dupe.

Posted by: demo kid on March 7, 2014 07:16 PM
20. At # 19,

"The positions and rhetoric you have burped up here over time combined with current affairs and the people elected by the other side, has "nothing to do with [my supposed] foul racist bullshit, and everything to do with the fact that politicians of all stripes act in their self-interest" . . . ?

Maybe your passion with defending all of the races [???] you apparently believe I have offended has clouded your enormous intellect and rapier-like wit.
I am interested to know what you are trying to say, but this makes no sense.
You might wish to think a little more about the ideas you intend to express before you reply.

Thanks though . . . it was at least lyrically interesting nonsensical gibberish.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 7, 2014 07:45 PM
21. At # 19,
"politicians of all stripes act in their self-interest.

Everyone acts in their self-interest.
What planet (do you imagine) you are from?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 7, 2014 07:57 PM
22. @20: Maybe your passion with defending all of the races [???] you apparently believe I have offended has clouded your enormous intellect and rapier-like wit.

If you can't figure out that "bongo" is offensive, then you're a pretty stupid fuck.

Likewise, you haven't made a reasonable point with all of your mewling nonsense. I have yet to see how anyone could ever be impressed with your bullshit.

Posted by: demo kid on March 7, 2014 08:27 PM
23. At # 22 ,

The fact that the word "bongo" is offensive to you only underscores how shallow and emotionally juvenile you are. Your presumption that your silliness somehow constitutes racism on my part is typical leftist political correctness, ignorance and stupidity.

I made several reasonable points (like the fact that everyone acts in their self-interest) but rather than addressing them intelligently you play the race crusade as if that makes you superior. It's clear that in your pathetic way you are just doing your best to serve what you believe is your own self interest, but only a shameless silly manipulator, or someone lacking a reasoning ability of their own, would claim that the word "bongo" is racist. Talk about a stupid fuck.

Furthermore, I couldn't possibly care less about "impressing" you. To impress you, I would have to get down to your moronic level of pretense and self-congratulatory pseudo-superiority gained by group-think with other morons. I'm more interested in the truth.

Thanks though.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 7, 2014 09:04 PM
24. "If you can't figure out that "bongo" is offensive"

Something funny. Try stringing together his slurs from the last thread - "nappy-headed, jive-talking bongo" - while holding in your mind's eye the image of the empty hall at CPAC where they held their minority outreach event.

Contrast that with the right's admiration of Putin expressed this week. Does anybody doubt that same hall would have been overflowing with cheering Republicans had Russia's shirtless bear wrestler, the evangelical right's new "Lion of Christianity" for his suppression of LGBT rights, made an appearance at CPAC? Surely not after the events of this last week.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 7, 2014 09:11 PM
25. C'mon Amused! You know where demo kid is from. He's from the planet where unicorns run free and everyone lives happily ever after, and there is no war, and only hope and change and fairies and pixie dust and plenty of $75 per hour for everyone.

And on that planet, if you like your plan you can keep it!

Posted by: Mike on March 7, 2014 09:25 PM
26. "Your presumption that your silliness somehow constitutes racism on my part is typical leftist political correctness, ignorance and stupidity."

I'm sure there's nothing racist at all about a white guy calling a black man a "nappy-headed, jive-talking bongo". In fact, if he were to walk up to Marshawn Lynch, say, and call him a nappy-headed, jive-talking bongo, I'm sure Amused would find that he had made for himself a new best friend for life. I think he should give it a try.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 7, 2014 09:28 PM
27. "And on that planet, if you like your plan you can keep it!"

And on your planet there's nothing racist at all about whites angrily calling blacks nappy-headed, jive-talking bongos.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 7, 2014 09:33 PM
28. Dr. Steve the bed wetting virgin,

Yeah you elected a a really
tough guy.
Za zodorovje comrade!

Posted by: Mike on March 7, 2014 09:39 PM
29. At # 25,

Mark Miloscia changed parties, and according to leftist trolls instead this thread is about leftist sensitivity to non-existent politically correct lies and distortions, and raving lunatics (who publicly eat their own snot) imagining non-existent CPAC events from "the planet where unicorns run free and everyone lives happily ever after, and there is no war, and only hope and change and fairies and pixie dust and plenty of $75 per hour for everyone.

Watching leftists run scared from the failures of everything they believe in is pathetic and amusing.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 7, 2014 09:40 PM
30. At # 26,

You are "sure there's nothing racist at all about a white guy calling a black man a "nappy-headed, jive-talking bongo".

There would be something racist about someone writing this.
Who wrote it and where?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 7, 2014 10:00 PM
31. At #'s 24 and 26,

Out of context Rootie Gazootie cherry-picked and fused together words to make it look as though I wrote racist things I never wrote.
This is the same thing he tried to do out of desperation to make it look as if I would murder girl scouts and other similar idiotic nonsense.

This illustrates the problem most liberals have with the truth. Because it is nearly never on your side, you are forced to make things up. Because this is one of the few tactics you know how employ you use it regularly to accuse your adversaries of the same things you actually do (make things up).

When your adversaries prove you wrong, you merely change tactics and pretend that cheap tactics like this alone are the equivalent to arguments and truth.

By stringing-together lies imputing racism to me you are the worst type of racist that exists. Nice try; if I was liberal (a degenerate moron like you) it might have worked. Again, your presumption that your silliness somehow constitutes racism on my part is typical vicious leftist political correctness, ignorance and stupidity.

It is truly amusing to observe the trouble people like you go to to prop up your delusions and fantasies.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 7, 2014 10:54 PM
32. As predicted, a lot of angry birds are flapping about. Like @ 22

Posted by: Leftover on March 7, 2014 10:58 PM
33. "You going door-to-door for him this year? "
I may.

Between his outstanding record of being on the government payroll for his entire adult life (Adam's biographical sketch doesn't list a single private-sector job) and the quivering, electric passion revealed by Amused's total dedication to maybe, we can boldly predict Milsocia's campaign will make his fourteen years of doing whatever look scintillating by comparison.

Zzzzzzzzz...

Posted by: tensor on March 7, 2014 11:45 PM
34. At # 33,

You may very well be correct that he is an empty suit . . . truly by nature most Democrats are.

It is also quite possible that Milsocia's campaign will make his fourteen years of doing whatever (as you say), look[s] scintillating by comparison, especially since he has decided to align himself with conservatives.

My compliments on surprisingly good observations.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 8, 2014 12:04 AM
35. "There would be something racist about someone writing this. Who wrote it and where?"

You did, in the last thread of Warren's. And with the following words, you admit it.

"Out of context Rootie Gazootie cherry-picked and fused together words to make it look as though I wrote racist things I never wrote."

How could I cherry-pick the words when you strung them together yourself, repeatedly using them all in the exact same context, to slur a black man. You rightly admit that it's racist. If that bothers you, the solution is simple, Amused. You need simply quit using those racial slurs to describe a black man.

"imagining non-existent CPAC events"

What horseshit. Apparently everybody on the planet has seen the photo of the empty hall except you. Of course, as it's quite embarassing for CPAC and the GOP, you won't find it here or on Fox News. LMFAO!

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 8, 2014 12:08 AM
36. Mike blathers, "bed wetting virgin"

Wingnnut projection. Sigh! Sometimes we learn far than we ever wanted to know.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 8, 2014 12:15 AM
37. At # 35,

Mark Miloscia may be a great addition to the Republican Party.
However, dim-witted emotionally deranged liberals want to discredit anyone that fails to worship their simple-minded leftist religion of the state and they will do anything to avoid the facts.

Liberal Democrat Senator Harry Reid is a great example of bald-faced and baseless lies who makes deranged and completely false accusations against his political adversaries. He does this because he is wrong, he knows it but he has no other tactic but loss, and winning is EVERYTHING.
To hell with truth.

In his own dim-twitted way rootie gazootie does the same. There is nothing to back up his accusations (all anyone needs do is go look), but having nothing else, this disgusting deranged nitwit makes the accusations anyway.

Who Cares?
Very amusing indeed.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 8, 2014 01:25 AM
38. @37, speaking of a one-sided religion, check this out

Once again The Left prove which party...
1) Is the party filled with enforced orthodox, intolerant, partisan, hypocritical racists.
2) Is the party waging a "War on Women."

And this is at an alleged place of learning and diversity. Imagine how hateful and controlling the uniformity of voice in say a newsroom or union hall. Not to mention how pathetic it is that the Left feels the need to control every possible interaction with opposing ideas to this degree.

No wonder the Left produces people like MBS, tensor, demo kid and scottd.

Posted by: Mike on March 8, 2014 07:35 AM
39. Very Angry Amused, "There is nothing to back up his accusations (all anyone needs do is go look)"

Nothing except the words you wrote - nappy-headed, jive-talking bongo. And, yes, one need only look at Warren's thread to confirm that those were the very words you repeatedly used to slur a black man, stringing together a narrative of unbridled race-hate. At least you're sensitive enough about what you've done to lie your wingnut ass off, denying that you did it.

Angry Mike farts, "intolerant, partisan, hypocritical racists"

Yes, your friend Amused is all of that.

Angry Mike sez, Democrats are waging a "War on Women".

Waving his transvaginal wand in anger as he cheers the closing of women's health care clinics across the land, as he kicks poor American mothers and their children off food stamps and denies them medical care and equal pay, Angry Mike scolds that Democrats are the ones who are really waging a "War on Women".

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 8, 2014 08:09 AM
40. @23: The fact that the word "bongo" is offensive to you only underscores how shallow and emotionally juvenile you are.

Really? I challenge you then to go up to all the black friends that you have and call them "bongo". If you don't have any -- which is quite likely -- any passer-by will do.

I made several reasonable points (like the fact that everyone acts in their self-interest) but rather than addressing them intelligently you play the race crusade as if that makes you superior.

Count the number of "reasonable points" that you made that I didn't make first. You could count them on zero hands.

Furthermore, I couldn't possibly care less about "impressing" you. To impress you, I would have to get down to your moronic level of pretense and self-congratulatory pseudo-superiority gained by group-think with other morons.

If you're assuming that asking a question is a "moronic level of pretense", you're just a stupid troll with absolutely nothing to contribute. As evident by the weak level of posting from other conservatives here, I'd say they understand that quite well.

Heck, you complained when a conservative poster called you a troll, even when you couldn't really refute that allegation.

@37: However, dim-witted emotionally deranged liberals want to discredit anyone that fails to worship their simple-minded leftist religion of the state and they will do anything to avoid the facts.

Where is the avoidance of the facts? You cannot seem to point to one thing that's wrong that a non-conservative posted here, critiquing Adam's post. All you do is say that what "anyone needs to do is go look", when apparently you're too lazy to do that.

In his own dim-twitted way rootie gazootie does the same. There is nothing to back up his accusations (all anyone needs do is go look), but having nothing else, this disgusting deranged nitwit makes the accusations anyway.

This is quite amusing when, just in the previous sentence, you said...

Liberal Democrat Senator Harry Reid is a great example of bald-faced and baseless lies who makes deranged and completely false accusations against his political adversaries. He does this because he is wrong, he knows it but he has no other tactic but loss, and winning is EVERYTHING.

So let's see... nothing to back up your accusations? Check. Having nothing else? Check. Disgusting deranged nitwit? Check.

Posted by: demo kid on March 8, 2014 08:28 AM
41. Mike@40: If there's a single racist, misogynistic, or hateful remark I've made on this blog, kindly point it out and you'll have a retraction and full apology from me.

If you can't, let me suggest that you might be projecting your own rage onto others.

Posted by: scottd on March 8, 2014 08:39 AM
42. @40: speaking of a one-sided religion, check this out

I've never been to Rutgers. I wouldn't care to go to a presentation by Ben Carson or Condolezza Rice, since I think they're boring mouthpieces of a standard right-wing agenda. If they started to preach away from the party line, I might be interested. Otherwise, I can just turn on Fox News in short bursts. But how is this relevant to me?

Also, the practice of protesting against people speaking at a university when you don't like them is done by the right and the left. Likewise, commencement speakers are going to be influenced by the politics and culture of a university -- I don't imagine that Bernie Sanders will be invited to speak at Brigham Young University's commencement, or that the University of California would be eager to get Dick Cheney to speak to its graduates.

So yes, when Oklahoma State University invites George Soros to be its commencement speaker and people don't complain, then we can talk.

Is the party filled with enforced orthodox, intolerant, partisan, hypocritical racists.

While I don't like the "Uncle Tom" epithet and I don't think people should be told what to believe simply for the color of their skin, how is that uniform proof of enforced orthodoxy, intolerance, partisanship, or hypocrisy? Given the type of crap that Rubio received from the Republican rank-and-file about his positions on immigration, for example, I don't think that people that dislike Rice or Carson are the only "racists" in the room.

Is the party waging a "War on Women."

Well, one woman, and for reasons unrelated to her gender.

And this is at an alleged place of learning and diversity. Imagine how hateful and controlling the uniformity of voice in say a newsroom or union hall. Not to mention how pathetic it is that the Left feels the need to control every possible interaction with opposing ideas to this degree.

I know! A hateful and controlling voice in the newsroom, with a uniform, partisan opinion. How awful!

No wonder the Left produces people like MBS, tensor, demo kid and scottd.

You mean, people that ask questions that cannot seem to be answered by the (u)SP brain trust?

Posted by: demo kid on March 8, 2014 08:54 AM
43. .
Why isn't the (un)SP peanut gallery talking about Miloscia?

Seems like he might be the best Republican in the state

Miloscia has been a big union supporter who has supported raising the minimum wage, opposed workers-compensation changes and earned a 91 percent lifetime voting record from the Washington State Labor Council

Surely when Confused by Everything is out knocking the doors of Republicans in the 30th District this is something he can bring to their attention.

What other life long pro labor Democrats will Adam Faber endorse this electoral year?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 8, 2014 09:04 AM
44. .
Another thing that makes Miloscia stand out as a fresh face in our Susan Hutchinson led Republican Party is that in addition to a long career as a public servant in the WA legislature, he's also proudly served our public as a public school teacher. Yes, as Adam Faber noted, only as a substitute public school teacher, but never the less a teacher.

Maybe that's why the Washington Education Association
(whose mission is to advance the professional interests of WEA's members in order to make public education the best it can be for students, staff, and communities.)
rated Miloscia at 100%.

Keep up the good work Republicans! This is far better than your teabagging idiot candidates!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 8, 2014 09:16 AM
45. At #46,

"Why isn't the (un)SP peanut gallery talking about Miloscia?"
Because the(un)SP liberal peanut gallery will not talk about anything honestly; they would rather waste space trying to smear anyone with which they disagree.
All they accomplish is to point the focus back at their silliness but especially since this is basically all (with very few exceptions) any of them ever do . . . who cares?

To some degree your post is different. Miloscia's record matters a lot and it will be a subject of much discussion. However, Miloscia will be evaluated respectfully on the basis of his record and ideas and not baseless simple-minded emotional/ideological grounds like whether or not "Bongo" is a racist term.

At least as a Republican he will not he smeared mercilessly with poop by his own in the way democrat liberals like you, tensor, demo kid and scottd try here against anyone with which you disagree. The more ridiculous the claims liberals make (See #'s 41 & 42) the more obvious their desperation.

When you threw in your schtick about "WEA's members in order to make public education the best it can be for students, staff, and communities" I had to laugh out loud. Nice projection of shamelessly false propaganda.

Almost certainly they rated Miloscia at 100% because he supported education funding; funding for teachers is ALL THEY CARE ABOUT; and certainly not students or communities. Whether or not Mark Miloscia believes that the WEA is positive for students and communities is an interesting wrinkle I will be certain to look into. Thanks.

And thanks sincerely for your comments, you help me in my conservative pursuits. And keep up the obviously devious and dishonest work democrats!
You are paving the way for a political sea-change this year!

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 8, 2014 10:32 AM
46. .
You know what else is great about Miloscia joining and being so enthusiastically supported by Adam Faber and the Republican party?

Your finally seeing a Republican who is proud of his record of raising taxes when tax increases are the obvious answer to fiscal problems.

Struggling States Look to Unorthodox Taxes

In his 11 years in the Washington Legislature, Representative Mark Miloscia says he has supported all manner of methods to fill the state's coffers, including increasing fees on property owners to help the homeless and taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, most of which, he said, passed "without a peep."

No one will deny I've been a vocal critic of Adam Faber (HACK!), but credit where credit is due.
For Faber to come out so early in his support of this new and better type of WA Republican, one that is pro WEA Teacher, Pro labor and not afraid of standing up to the anti-tax idiots and supportive of all manner of methods to fill the state's coffers, well that's just a move in a positive direction.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 8, 2014 10:35 AM
47. The more ridiculous the claims liberals make (See #'s 41 & 42) the more obvious their desperation.

What was the ridiculous claim @41?

Posted by: scottd on March 8, 2014 10:53 AM
48. .
One last thing about the positive turn the WA Republican is demonstrating by welcoming life long Democrat Mark Miloscia and his views into the Republican party, is how long has it been seen we've seen such a vocal opponent of the death penalty supported by the Republican party?

Long before the candidate Mark Miloscia endorsed in the WA 2012 governor's raise, Inslee, decided to institute a moratorium on capital punishment, newly minted Republican, Mark Miloscia, was out front on the issue.

Mark Miloscia was the primary sponsor of HOUSE BILL 1921 - eliminating the death penalty in favor of life incarceration; amending RCW 10.95.030

Anti Capital Punishment, Pro Labor, Pro Taxes, Pro WEA Republican candidate Mark Miloscia - a breath of fresh air in the WA GOP.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 8, 2014 11:04 AM
49. Btw, it would be nice if Kshama Sawant would switch parties to anything but communist as she already is....here's what they're doing to people in Venezuela:
http://weaselzippers.us/178625-rationing-in-venezuela-brings-eerie-brandings-on-peoples-arms/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Posted by: Monterey on March 8, 2014 12:01 PM
50. @49 Monterey on March 8, 2014 12:01 PM,
Who knows? If the new and Adam Faber endorsed Republican Mark Miloscia with his long record of supporting an increased minimum living wage can garner your support, maybe you can recruit Sawant to your party and actually have a Republican office holder in Seattle.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 8, 2014 12:16 PM
51. @45. Because the(un)SP liberal peanut gallery will not talk about anything honestly; they would rather waste space trying to smear anyone with which they disagree.

Same thing with the conservative peanut gallery. Your point?

All they accomplish is to point the focus back at their silliness but especially since this is basically all (with very few exceptions) any of them ever do . . . who cares?

I've asked reasonable questions. I just find it silly that you can't answer them.

To some degree your post is different. Miloscia's record matters a lot and it will be a subject of much discussion.

Great. Then discuss it. You haven't.

However, Miloscia will be evaluated respectfully on the basis of his record and ideas and not baseless simple-minded emotional/ideological grounds like whether or not "Bongo" is a racist term.

If you're using stupid racist language -- still haven't heard a grand defence of "bongo" -- you deserve to be called out on it. Own up to the fact that you're a dick.

At least as a Republican he will not he smeared mercilessly with poop by his own in the way democrat liberals like you, tensor, demo kid and scottd try here against anyone with which you disagree. The more ridiculous the claims liberals make (See #'s 41 & 42) the more obvious their desperation.

Stop lying. I haven't smeared this guy. I'm also not a Democrat.

When you threw in your schtick about "WEA's members in order to make public education the best it can be for students, staff, and communities" I had to laugh out loud. Nice projection of shamelessly false propaganda.

And it's conservative propaganda to believe that teacher's unions are evil and actively trying to hurt children and communities. Your point?

Almost certainly they rated Miloscia at 100% because he supported education funding; funding for teachers is ALL THEY CARE ABOUT; and certainly not students or communities.

The funding to pay the teachers that work in the education system is a basic component of the education system. Are you denying this?

Likewise, are you saying that teacher pay is the only issue that the WEA is concerned about?

And thanks sincerely for your comments, you help me in my conservative pursuits. And keep up the obviously devious and dishonest work democrats!

Apparently your "conservative pursuits" haven't changed since you were in kindergarten.

You are paving the way for a political sea-change this year!

I would take that bet -- it would be a great way of making a couple of bucks. Say -- $300 each?

Here are the basic rules -- you tell me what you believe a "sea-change" would represent, I'll give you my predictions at the same time, and the person who is as close to the final results wins. My guess is that in your addled, hyper-partisan state of mind, it'll be like taking candy from a (crying, whining) baby.

Heck, I'm actually excited about the possibility. I'm sure it would be pretty interesting, even if we need to wait eight months to get the results. Having people put their money where their mouths are is much better than listening to bland partisan pablum.

Posted by: demo kid on March 8, 2014 12:29 PM
52. Just the other day the (un)SP crowd was jeering as RINOs all but the 70-80 REAL Republicans in the House. Now they're talking about going door-to-door for a pro-union, pro-teacher, pro-taxes, anti-death penalty Democrat whose only reason to run appears to be to get back on the gubmint dole to the tune of $43K/Yr for four months work while beefing up his already considerable gubmint pension.

It's not exactly a secret that the Pavlovian wingnut chumps here are easily played, but this is getting to be ridiculous.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 8, 2014 12:36 PM
53. "Having people put their money where their mouths are is much better than listening to bland partisan pablum."

Too bad wingnut trolls have a history of welching on bets - people like HA's Bob the Welcher and the $1,000 to charity bet he lost, and before him there was Mark, the Redneck Welcher. But there's no harm in adding Amused to the list of wingnuts who don't pay their bets.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 8, 2014 01:05 PM
54. "Having people put their money where their mouths are is much better than listening to bland partisan pablum."

Too bad wingnut trolls have a history of welching on bets - people like HA's Bob the Welcher and the $1,000 to charity bet he lost, and before him there was Mark, the Redneck Welcher. But there's no harm in adding Amused to the list of wingnuts who don't pay their bets.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 8, 2014 01:05 PM
55. @52 Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 8, 2014 12:36 PM,

Now, now. That's a bit unfair.
Just because you and I have always known and understood that teabagging bunk about "takers" and "moocher" and "tax cuts solve everything" and collective bargaining is unMurkin, and lifetime public employees are eveeeel, don't castigate Adam Faber and the WA GOP for taking so long to figure it out.

Give Adam Faber and Susan Hutchinson's WA GOP a little credit for recruiting and endorsing the positions of a tax payer educated life long public employee and Democrat, Mark Miloscia, to provide all Republicans insight to the political and economic benefits to Washington of being an Anti Capital Punishment, Pro Labor, Pro Taxes, Pro WEA, living minimum wage Republican.

I, for one, view this as a step back towards sanity.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 8, 2014 01:08 PM
56. I'd rate it less of a move towards sanity than an admission that Republicans can't get elected in the Puget Sound basin any more. Being anti-tax, anti-union, and parsimonious with education funding doesn't work when your voters consist of highly-skilled mechanics and engineers. Being anti-gay and "traditionalist" also doesn't cut it in areas with many immigrants (both from without and within the US).

Except for the Secretary of State, who is usually a liberal Republican, and the Rodney Tom Occupation of our Senate (an unstable situation) Republicans have Teabagged themselves into total irrelevancy around here. Little wonder they're recruiting liberal Democrats to run for office.

Posted by: tensor on March 8, 2014 03:17 PM
57. At # 54,

"there's no harm in adding Amused to the list of wingnuts who don't pay their bets.

Why not?
No harm to me.
Just makeup whatever fits your insane perverted fancy and pretend that this is a real place and you can poop anywhere you like and smear it all over yourself.
Do your public contributions and persona proud once again
Thanks . . . keep em coming.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 8, 2014 03:30 PM
58. "At least as a Republican he will not he smeared mercilessly with poop by his own in the way democrat liberals like you, tensor, demo kid and scottd try here against anyone with which you disagree. The more ridiculous the claims liberals make (See #'s 41 & 42) the more obvious their desperation."

We all know that understanding stuff isn't really your thing, but I'm not a Democrat and never have been. We also understand how having your smugly pompous affected attitude of superiority repeatedly revealed as risibly inadequate by your inability to answer even the simplest of questions drives you to attack us who ask those questions, but until and unless you give a single example of my having behaved in the manner you claim, we'll just dismiss it as more of your empty posturing. (Don't worry; I won't ask you what "ridiculous ... claims" are made in comments nos. 41 and 42.)

Good luck stumping for your new, pro-labor, pro-union, pro-education-spending, tax-increasing opponent of the death penalty candidate in the cold rain of November evenings in Federal Way.

Posted by: tensor on March 8, 2014 04:15 PM
59. At # 58,

It's nice to see a happy pig in his poop . . . from a distance.
Thanks

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 8, 2014 04:19 PM
60. @56 tensor on March 8, 2014 03:17 PM,

The first step in a 12 Step program is admitting you have a problem, so I think Adam Faber and the WA Susan Hutchinson GOP has made a half of a step.

And, yeah, Mark Miloscia still appears to fall into the category of homophobic uterus botherers, so even if Confused by Everything does help him knock 20k doors in Federal Way he still has the 'ick!' factor.

But, I'm still pleased to see that Adam Faber and the WA Susan Hutchinson GOP are on board with an Anti Capital Punishment, Pro Labor, Pro Taxes, Pro WEA, living minimum wage Republican candidate like Mark Miloscia.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 8, 2014 04:21 PM
61. "The first step in a 12 Step program is admitting you have a problem, so I think Adam Faber and..."

Good advice for the increasingly unhinged Amused as well.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 8, 2014 04:56 PM
62. Good advice for the increasingly unhinged Amused as well.

Yep -- he seems to have developed a strange obsession with poop and boogers.

Anything you can do for him?

Posted by: scottd on March 8, 2014 05:13 PM
63. At # 61,

"The first step in a 12 Step program is admitting you have a problem, . . . "
Good advice for the increasingly unhinged Amused as well . . . ""The first step in a 12 Step program is admitting you have a problem, . . . "
Good advice for the increasingly unhinged Amused as well . . . "

And in your insane narcissistic flight of the perverted imagination I would doubtless start by posting a disgusting utube video like yours of myself picking my nose and eating it?

No thanks, I'll stick with reality, rationality, sensibility, decency, and charity to people.

While I disagree (happily and proudly) about nearly everything with liberal democrats MBS, scottd, tensor, and demopunk, it surprises me a little that any of them put up with a genuine degenerate moron like you.
The good news for me is I don't take the bus at night or walk around under overpasses so I don't have to smell you.

But I must say I appreciate all of your excellent comments concerning Mark Miloscia.
Good Job and keep em comin'.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 8, 2014 05:35 PM
64. "It's nice to see a happy pig in his poop . . ."

We can add "animal husbandry" to the long and growing list of topics of which Amused has unwittingly admitted total ignorance.

He can still tell us the reaction Republican voters in Federal Way have to being asked to vote for a lifelong Democat with a pro-union, pro-tax record. (At least, his long hours of knocking on their doors in the cold rain will give them plenty of chances to so inform him.) From what I've read, it won't be pleasant:

"...all those people who say the Republican Party should move left are full of stupidity."

(Bold text in original.)

Posted by: tensor on March 8, 2014 05:39 PM
65. At # 62,

You are actually comfortable associating yourself with a degenerate like Dr. degenerate the blind wanker?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 8, 2014 06:00 PM
66. "We can add "animal husbandry" to the long and growing list of topics of which Amused has unwittingly admitted total ignorance.

It is hard to imagine anyone making a reply like this. You don't realize how unanimously dim-witted that comment is?

Just curious.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 8, 2014 06:34 PM
67. "I'll stick with reality, rationality, sensibility, decency, and charity to people."

One cannot "stick" with what one has never done. Your comments here have been heavily larded with personal attacks and attempted insults, while remaining gruel-thin with regards to facts, data, evidence, logic, and reason.

But, by all means, keep hurling silly insults in the basements of threads on a no-influence political blog. At least it doesn't waste as much effort as walking around in the rain, asking Republicans to vote for a career Democrat.

Posted by: tensor on March 8, 2014 06:49 PM
68. .
As long as the rapidly diminishing (un)SP peanut gallery does not want to talk about the new Adam Faber and the WA Susan Hutchinson GOP endorsed life long public employee Democrat Anti Capital Punishment, Pro Labor, Pro Taxes, Pro WEA, living minimum wage Republican candidate Mark Miloscia ...

Confused by Everything sputters @66 on March 8, 2014 06:34 PM "You don't realize how unanimously dim-witted that comment is?"

Well, I realize you can't string together a grammatically correct simple question.

Confused, do you have any thoughts about the hypothesis that poor grammar is correlated to cognitive dissonance?

ps. Bonus points for the Palinesque word salad "unanimously dim-witted"!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 8, 2014 06:50 PM
69. At # 67,

So . . . no reply.

This is really simple so you should be able to understand and respond. No one cares about the nonsense you just wrote except you.
If anyone would care about the subject at hand it is me wanting to know if you are actually comfortable associating yourself with a degenerate like Dr. degenerate the blind wanker and if you are actually unaware of how unanimously dim-witted it was to write, "We can add "animal husbandry" to the long and growing list of topics of which Amused has unwittingly admitted total ignorance" is?

I certainly don't expect a rational answer from you. Just curious.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 8, 2014 07:01 PM
70. At # 68,

"You don't realize how unanimously dim-witted that comment is?" and Well, I realize you can't string together a grammatically correct simple question.

Got nothing else to do?
O.K., what would have been the "grammatically correct" question?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 8, 2014 07:10 PM
71. At #'s 67, 68,

Come on guys the answers are easy but instead . . . think, think . . . evasion, evasion . . . bullshit, bullshit.

If I get an honest answer to either of these of queries it will be the first time from either these trolls.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 8, 2014 07:18 PM
72. Amused, here's a de-bunking of your ignorant blather about swine and their own excrement. I'll even highlight it for you:

"You see, pigs can't sweat like we do to cool off. So, yes, they'll enjoy wallowing in a good mud puddle to cool down. But, like us, they're conscientious. They won't wallow in their own excrement. And if you give them water, they will bathe."

Meanwhile, it was fun to watch you repeat your own ignorant use of "unanimous" in place of "unambiguous." You missed it even after MikeBoyScout kindly pointed it out to you! That's some hard-core auto-reinforced ignorance at work there!

The only "pig in his poop" around here is the one wallowing in his own self-maintained ignorance. Have a great time in Federal Way this Falll, standing in the rain, listening to some Teabagger's rant about how your candidate is a real RINO.

Posted by: tensor on March 8, 2014 08:24 PM
73. "Anything you can do for him?"

I believe that the proper application of voltage would do wonders for Amused, but he keeps refusing offers to treat him. Shame, because he's covered now under the ACA - both as a mental illness and as a pre-existing condition.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 8, 2014 08:31 PM
74. At # 72,

So, . . . the conclusion is that tensor is completely comfortable associating his/herself with a degenerate like Dr. degenerate the blind wanker (Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon) anywhere but most especially at # 61.

Nice work.

Thanks kindly for your comments.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 8, 2014 08:46 PM
75. "So, . . . the conclusion is that tensor is completely comfortable associating his/herself with a degenerate like Dr. degenerate the blind wanker (Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon) anywhere but most especially at # 61."

I don't know how I "associate" with someone whom I've never met, and with whom my interactions have been rare. I think we can just dismiss this claim as another example of Amused self-pleasingly throwing around big words he simply does not understand and will (or can) not learn.

Meanwhile, any news on how many hours per week Amused plans to spend stomping around in the cold rain of a Federal Way Autumn, telling die-hard Republicans to vote for a lifelong Democrat (and career government employee!) who voted against the death penalty, and for higher salaries for unionized state workers?

Posted by: tensor on March 8, 2014 08:58 PM
76. At # 75,

Incredibly idiotic.

Thanks for the lesson.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 8, 2014 09:39 PM
77. Low information voters are slowly waking up to the lack of service to constituents by the Democrat statist party in Red (not blue WA State). Tensor, MikeBS, Demokid and other local die hard Obamunists have chosen not to wake up and would rather see sovereignty lost to the USA and don't care what happens to future generations of Americans. The trolls have now shown their seditious sides.

Idiotic by design - the Red - Blue state thing is a misnomer. Statists are red as in hammer & sickle on the inside - therefore CA, WA, NY and IL are really red states, while TX, AZ, AL and ID are True Blue states. As with most everything else, the left has it back-asswards and Republicans bought into it because they had a brain fart. Maybe Libertarian-Conservative will supplant the Republicans,who need a extreme makeover.

The Democrat party ? They are the party of disguises - liberal fascism sums it up sufficiently. Too bad they exude that "A sucker is born every minute" and their model of Government is "Lord of the Flies".

Posted by: KDS on March 8, 2014 10:44 PM
78. It's hard to run as a Democrat these days and becoming more and more difficult as all of bongo's programs and policies fail miserably.

Welcome Mark Miloscia, you will be among much smarter but most importantly, honest and principled people amongst the Republican caucus.

And especially since no one has made a legitimate (let along cognizable) argument against Mark Miloscia becoming a Republican and changing the profession of his key ideals in doing so, he will cross the aisle and win.

Geeeee whizzzzz there leftist geniuses . . .this is what is coming . . . and you are fucked
Have fun.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 8, 2014 10:59 PM
79. "It's hard to run as a Democrat these days" because Democrats already hold almost all elective offices.

We know you're extraordinary thick, even by the dismal standards of the (u)SP brain trust, but do please try to keep up; I've already fixed that for you in this very thread.

Posted by: tensor on March 9, 2014 03:17 AM
80. @78 Confused by Everything on March 8, 2014 10:59 PM
"Welcome Mark Miloscia, you will be among much smarter but most importantly, honest and principled people amongst the Republican caucus."

We appreciate your confidence that the life long government employee, Democrat, Anti Capital Punishment, Pro Labor, Pro Taxes, Pro WEA, living minimum wage Republican candidate Mark Miloscia will win and join the Senate Republican caucus, but he's going to have a very tough time against the popular small business owning incumbent.

You knocking doors for him today? Making phone calls? Donating money?

With his last-place finish in the race for State Auditor in 2012, he's going to have a tough time even with the endorsement of Adam Faber and the WA Susan Hutchinson GOP.
Seems you are the only member of the (un)SP peanut gallery supporting him. Why do you think that is?
Is that because he's made the "honest and principled" decision to retain his position as a Democratic Party precinct committee officer while he runs for office as a Republican?


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 9, 2014 08:56 AM
81. MBS,

Despite yourself, you make a good point. Mark Miloscia may be foolish enough to attempt -- as a Republican -- to promote ALL of the idiotic models of policy stupidity you list, and if he does, he will most likely not get the support he needs to win.

Miloscia said of his party switch, "Today, it's the Republican Party that offers a big tent, welcoming different views, from moderates like Secretary of State Kim Wyman and Senator Steve Litzow, to conservatives in Eastern Washington. Washington State Republicans don't insist that everyone believe and vote exactly the same way to run for office.

It is possible Miloscia believes that by changing parties away from a losing bongo-led Democrat party unanimously filled with stupidity, corruption, incompetence and shameless obduracy, and to a party not affected by these maladies is the only way he can get elected. Eide like all democrats is in trouble simply because of her alignment with the left, but it is anyone's guess whether or not this will matter. Neither you nor I have any way to know the answer to this. If Eide was running in the Seattle liberal cesspool she would be O.K., but Federal Way is different.

It is more likely that Miloscia either never actually believed in absolute alignment with the rigid leftist vision of central control over citizens included in your list. It is also likely that he has outgrown all or part of his alignment on these specific policy issues and wishes to work with people who will accept his varied views (within reasonable limits) without demanding he perpetrate liberal stupidity on a public that needs real solutions to real problems.

If Miloscia wants to do the latter, he is playing his cards right.
We'll see.

Thanks for your comments.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 9, 2014 10:23 AM
82. If Miloscia wins, which is certainly possible - there will be another dent in the Obamunists' armor.

He will have to run a brave campaign to overcome leftist cowardice and propaganda and general malevolence. If he does this, he will win !

Posted by: KDS on March 9, 2014 10:44 AM
83. @81: Mark Miloscia may be foolish enough to attempt -- as a Republican -- to promote ALL of the idiotic models of policy stupidity you list, and if he does, he will most likely not get the support he needs to win.

Always knew that idea of a "big tent" was a fraud.

It is possible Miloscia believes that by changing parties away from a losing bongo-led Democrat party unanimously filled with stupidity, corruption, incompetence and shameless obduracy, and to a party not affected by these maladies is the only way he can get elected.

I didn't realize that Obama was the head of the Washington State Democratic Party. Still, your assertion that the Republican Party isn't filled with stupidity, corruption, incompetence and shameless obduracy, or that EVERY Democrat is stupid, corrupt, incompetent, and obdurate is false. You have not shown this in the slightest, nor have you given any rational reason why Miloscia would really switch.

Likewise, polling suggests that the people do not agree with your assessment:

By a 20-point margin, the public sees Democrats (52%) as being more concerned than Republicans (32%) with the needs of people like themselves, while a plurality says Republicans are more influenced by lobbyists and special interests (47% vs. 30% saying Democrats). In addition, four-in-ten believe the Democratic Party governs in a more honest and ethical way (41%), compared with 31% who choose the Republicans.

Eide like all democrats is in trouble simply because of her alignment with the left, but it is anyone's guess whether or not this will matter.

Again, the only people that she would be in trouble with would be Republicans. In fact, the idea that the WSRP would be trying to get Miloscia to switch suggests that they'd be looking to get a moderate that would appeal to the center-left.

It is more likely that Miloscia either never actually believed in absolute alignment with the rigid leftist vision of central control over citizens included in your list.

So therefore, he was dishonest by supporting things that he did not believe in, just to win elections in his district.

It is also likely that he has outgrown all or part of his alignment on these specific policy issues and wishes to work with people who will accept his varied views (within reasonable limits) without demanding he perpetrate liberal stupidity on a public that needs real solutions to real problems.

That sentence doesn't make sense. He's "outgrown" (?) his "alignment", but wants to work with people that accept his "varied views"... but apparently won't, since you think of them as "liberal stupidity".

Again, "big tent" my ass.

And as I said previously, I'm really wondering what spurred this party switch NOW. Is it simply to move up the food chain? Is he assuming the "Majority" Caucus Coalition will continue for long enough so he can get in on the action?

Posted by: demo kid on March 9, 2014 11:50 AM
84. At # 83,

Amusing comments especially the part about your ass being a big tent.
Thanks for your comments

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 9, 2014 12:29 PM
85. "to a party not affected by these maladies" "Welcome Mark Miloscia, you will be among much smarter but most importantly, honest and principled people"

Sez Stupe of Republicans. LMFAO! Stupe himself just the other day threatened to shoot and kill a commenter he disagreed with. To the response of cheers, a Republican at CPAC just made a call for right-wing deathsquads to kill anybody who votes for immigration reform, and right-wing militias are planning to converge on Washington on May 16th to remove Obama and Holder from office and put them before an all-white right-wing death panel consisting of, no kidding, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Darryl Issa!

Honest and principled! What malady? LMFAO! Just a bunch of hate-filled, murderous, treasonous racists. Heh. Just like you, Stupe.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 9, 2014 12:58 PM
86. At # 82,

Quite right.
Given my observations at # 81, what Miloscia needs to do is point out the positive side of his record and the truth behind Eide's cynical pretensions of accomplishments in substitution for real solutions to human problems.

Eide claims to be champion for transportation, public schools, highway safety and small business
Her record is as superficial as it can be.

Her idea of "championing public schools" is to support the WEA at the cost of education for our children. Maybe she should be reminded that "public schools" are buildings not children and our future depends on people who are being trained to reason on their own rather than become twitterpated brain-dead democrat bots like MBS, scottd, tensor, demokid and others like them.

Eide's idea of "championing transportation" includes perpetration of a new "Road Usage Charge Assessment" that will charge fees for drivers on our highways. This Assessment rather than being a substitute for the enormous gas taxes on drivers already in place will be just another huge tax increase to the average worker they cannot afford during a recession.

Another example is her proud pretense to being a champion of "highway safety." On one hand she did something good by supporting the "No Texting" while driving provision ( a proforma no-brainer), but show her true colors by associating herself with MADD.

It doesn't take much critical thought to conclude that strict enforcement of sensible drunk driving laws will prevent more highway deaths than pretentious absurd over-regulation of arbitrary blood alcohol standards .

Tracy Eide is more interested in being superficially identified with a narrowly (foolish liberal) popular but cynical movement in the pretense of public safety than real public safety for our families and friends.

Eide claims to be a "small business owner" but try to find out what business she is in. She is certainly not prud of that -- whatever it is. Moreover, whatever it is, Eide's proud association with small business is belied by her support of reckless spending and tax increases, and stupid destructive minimum wage laws that hurt small business.

And especially since these things make no sense whatsoever, democrats like MBS, demokid, scottd and tensor believe fervently in them all.
Very amusing indeed.

Thanks for your comments.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 9, 2014 01:02 PM
87. "You knocking doors for him today? Making phone calls? Donating money?"

(Crickets.)

But hey, Miloscia has the "unanimously" total support of lip service from Amused and KDS, expressed in the lower reaches of a comment thread of a bottom-of-the-barrel fading political blog in Seattle. Once they tell us just how much of Miloscia's pro-labor, pro-union, tax-increasing, teacher salary-raising, lifetime upon the government payroll they support, we can then determine if Eide needs bother with an actual campaign, or if she can take the same route Maria Cantwell took to re-election in 2012.

Posted by: tensor on March 9, 2014 01:07 PM
88. At # 87,

If this is "the lower reaches of a comment thread of a bottom-of-the-barrel fading political blog in Seattle,""the lower reaches of a comment thread of a bottom-of-the-barrel fading political blog in Seattle," what does that make you?

Smarter than us?
Of course not, and you prove it every time you post.

Confident?
Hardly, if you were confident about the status of your social/political views you would never bother to come here. Even erratic emotionally unstable fools like you have cognizable motives.

Worried?
Of course you are. As bongo and others in your religion of the state fail at everything they do, and you watch as your idiotic fantasies slip away, it frustrates your little pea-sized brain, so like an angry nitwit you strike out aimlessly at whatever you can in anger.

It will not work for you.
But it's fun for me.
Thanks so much

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 9, 2014 01:52 PM
89. @86: Given my observations at # 81, what Miloscia needs to do is point out the positive side of his record and the truth behind Eide's cynical pretensions of accomplishments in substitution for real solutions to human problems.

And you have not done this, choosing instead to dwell on your mindless hate for liberals.

Eide claims to be champion for transportation, public schools, highway safety and small business. Her record is as superficial as it can be.

Your analysis is really the only superficial thing here.

Her idea of "championing public schools" is to support the WEA at the cost of education for our children. Maybe she should be reminded that "public schools" are buildings not children and our future depends on people who are being trained to reason on their own rather than become twitterpated brain-dead democrat bots like MBS, scottd, tensor, demokid and others like them.

"Twitterpated brain-dead bots" are true on both sides of the spectrum -- you're living proof.

You're also confusing multiple issues with the union here, between educational standards, wages and benefits for teachers, contract negotiations, and so forth. Try to form a reasoned argument, instead of just spewing the conservative party line.

Eide's idea of "championing transportation" includes perpetration of a new "Road Usage Charge Assessment" that will charge fees for drivers on our highways. This Assessment rather than being a substitute for the enormous gas taxes on drivers already in place will be just another huge tax increase to the average worker they cannot afford during a recession.

Replacing or supplementing the gas tax with an assessment like this makes sense -- new cars are more fuel-efficient, and are paying less of their way. Are you in favor then of people that are using the roads not paying their fair share?

Another example is her proud pretense to being a champion of "highway safety." On one hand she did something good by supporting the "No Texting" while driving provision ( a proforma no-brainer), but show her true colors by associating herself with MADD. It doesn't take much critical thought to conclude that strict enforcement of sensible drunk driving laws will prevent more highway deaths than pretentious absurd over-regulation of arbitrary blood alcohol standards.

This doesn't make sense. You are FOR texting-while-driving restrictions, which is something that violates a libertarian perspective on traffic safety and personal freedoms, while you are AGAINST a uniform standard for assessing DUI, which provides a bright line to determine impairment. It's inconsistent, especially since "sensible drunk driving laws" SHOULD include a defensible standard for evaluating whether someone shouldn't be behind the wheel.

Tracy Eide is more interested in being superficially identified with a narrowly (foolish liberal) popular but cynical movement in the pretense of public safety than real public safety for our families and friends.

Which you have not proven -- in fact, you're quite inconsistent yourself about public safety. I'd give some thought as to what you believe before starting to criticize her.

Eide claims to be a "small business owner" but try to find out what business she is in. She is certainly not prud of that -- whatever it is. Moreover, whatever it is, Eide's proud association with small business is belied by her support of reckless spending and tax increases, and stupid destructive minimum wage laws that hurt small business.

What a dull and uninformed view. Honestly, if marginal businesses cannot survive paying their employees a slightly higher wage by passing through their cost or exploring efficiencies in operations, why should they survive? Many more bad businesses would last longer if they could get people to work for them for free or for $1/hour, but would the "jobs" created in that circumstance really count?

Likewise, whining about "reckless spending and tax increases" is a constant with conservatives. In my experience, tax and budget policies by modern conservatives are just as reckless, but the difference is mainly in the relative burdens on the rich versus the poor.

What helps small businesses is an attractive region with a well-educated labor pool, a diversity of ideas, and a market for their products. None of this is inconsistent with Democratic policies. (Well, most of them... I have my own criticisms.) The difference is which economic god you happen to worship.

And especially since these things make no sense whatsoever, democrats like MBS, demokid, scottd and tensor believe fervently in them all.

I don't "believe fervently"... I simply understand that a lot of what drives the modern conservative movement, and especially its economic policies, has little to do with making the world better for people. It has MUCH more to do with doling out revenge, and making sure that "people get what they deserve", according to a pretty small group of people.

Yes, very amusing indeed.

Posted by: demo kid on March 9, 2014 02:00 PM
90. @88: If this is "the lower reaches of a comment thread of a bottom-of-the-barrel fading political blog in Seattle,""the lower reaches of a comment thread of a bottom-of-the-barrel fading political blog in Seattle," what does that make you?

Poking the zoo animals.

Smarter than us? Of course not, and you prove it every time you post.

And yet you don't seem to be able to rebut anything they (or I) say. I'd say that's a good yardstick of intelligence.

Confident? Hardly, if you were confident about the status of your social/political views you would never bother to come here. Even erratic emotionally unstable fools like you have cognizable motives.

Says the one posting to the board that lines up with your ideological views. Confidence is being able to defend your views to a hostile audience.

Worried? Of course you are. As bongo and others in your religion of the state fail at everything they do, and you watch as your idiotic fantasies slip away, it frustrates your little pea-sized brain, so like an angry nitwit you strike out aimlessly at whatever you can in anger.

What makes me more sad than anything is that you cannot seem to link things together and provide a rational argument for anything you say. I welcome good policy debate... but you're just a dope that likes to rant about liberals.

But it's fun for me.

For me, it's like watching a two-year-old with an iPad to see you try to respond here. I really hope that you're just some kind of absurdist proof of Poe's Law, and that you actually aren't running around the world with this uninformed and, quite frankly, pretty sad views.

Posted by: demo kid on March 9, 2014 02:06 PM
91. At # 89,

"I don't "believe fervently"... I simply understand that a lot of what drives the modern conservative movement, and especially its economic policies, has little to do with making the world better for people. It has MUCH more to do with doling out revenge, and making sure that "people get what they deserve", according to a pretty small group of people.

Now that is amusing.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 9, 2014 02:23 PM
92. At # 91,

"What makes me more sad than anything . . . "

Right.
I would be worried for what is happening to your phony liberal religion and democrat party if I were you.

But the thankfully (Thanks God!!!) I am definitely not you. ;>)

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 9, 2014 02:29 PM
93. @ Confused by Everything,

I see you did not get out and do anything for Mark Miloscia today. Don't worry, it is not likely anybody else did either. Surely that somehow bodes badly for Democrats in your "mind".

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 9, 2014 04:46 PM
94. Hardly, if you were confident about the status of your social/political views you would never bother to come here.

When I started coming here, almost nine years ago, a Republican still had a chance of becoming governor or senator here. A person could be fired from her job for being gay, and Republicans were running anti-gay-marriage votes in other states because defending the civil rights of gays cost Democrats politically.

So, genius, are you going to repeal gay marriage? Deny legal protections to gays? Repeal the ACA? Get a Republican elected governor or senator? Revoke abortion righs? You've spent most of this thread crowing about how you're going to get a tax-and-spend Democrat elected as a Republican, because that's the best hope you have for arresting the chronic local Republican/conservative slide into utter irrelevance.

I've never felt better about liberalism, progress, or our future. Do tell us how much money you've donated to the cause of getting Mr.Milsocia back on the public's dime, where you and he both believe he truly belongs.

Posted by: tensor on March 9, 2014 04:48 PM
95. @92: I would be worried for what is happening to your phony liberal religion and democrat party if I were you. But the thankfully (Thanks God!!!) I am definitely not you. ;>)

Put up, or shut up. Let's figure out a way to put $300 each in escrow somewhere, we'll hash out the rules, and you and I can place our bets on what this fictitious "conservative wave" would look like.

You do not have evidence on your side, just wishful thinking.

Posted by: demo kid on March 9, 2014 05:23 PM
96. "If Miloscia wins, which is certainly possible - there will be another dent in the Obamunists' armor."l

While I'm sure all members of the entire international cadre of "Obamunists" are quaking in their boots at the thought of a former back-bencher challenging a proven winner in the all-important national battleground district of Federal Way, Washington, I'd like to know if you plan to do anything yourself to help Mr. Miloscia get back on the taxpayers' payroll. Donations? Phone calls? Traipsing around in the cold rain, explaining to Teabaggers that a tax-and-spend Democrat-turned-Republican is totally not, no way, un-na never a RINO?

Or, like Amused, will your total contribution consist of poorly-written comments in the basement of a fading political blog in Seattle?

Posted by: tensor on March 9, 2014 07:47 PM
97. @96 - Why are you so reluctant to pull your head out of your posterior ? I know the truth will hurt you, but you sound awful stupid with your ignorant and bigoted comments.

Posted by: KDS on March 9, 2014 09:10 PM
98. At # 97,

Projected desperation is oddly amusing to watch isn't it?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 9, 2014 09:14 PM
99. At # 95,

O.K. hombre put up or shut up.
Be at 3rd and Pike high noon tomorrow with your $300
by jiminy.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 9, 2014 09:20 PM
100. @99: Be at 3rd and Pike high noon tomorrow with your $300

So I see you've chickened out? Figures.

Posted by: demo kid on March 9, 2014 10:22 PM
101. I think you'll have a hard time finding any Democrats who still consider Rodney Tom a "Democrat."

Posted by: Roger Rabbit on March 9, 2014 10:55 PM
102. Operation American Spring, May 16, 2014

That's when Amused, KDS and other true American patriots say "20-30 million God-fearing patriots" will descend upon Washington, DC to demand that the "nappy-headed, jive-talking obongo", that damned Kenyan commie-statist usurper, leave office. Or else. They say they're not threatening violence, but if their demands are not met, they will not be responsible for the carnage that will follow.

"We have 1.8 million definite militia members coming," promises Operation American Spring spokeswoman Karen Smith. "Other than that, we're not keeping a list of concerned people or whatever because how are we gonna do that?"

In accordance with their manifesto posted on Facebook, "Those with the principles of a West, Cruz, Lee, DeMint, Paul, Gov Walker, Sessions, Gowdy, Jordan, Issa, will comprise a tribunal and assume positions of authority to convene investigations, recommend appropriate charges against politicians and government employees to the new U.S. Attorney General appointed by the new President."

No, I couldn't make this shit up.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/harry-riley-operation-american-spring-fox-news

A search on "Operation American Spring" will reveal that these folks are worked into a lather over this, foaming at the mouth with thoughts of the revolution they're planning out in the open, right there on the internet for all to see. Apparently they have to resort to planning a revolution in public view because the "nappy-headed, jive-talking" usurper took away all of their freedoms, or something like that.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 9, 2014 11:38 PM
103. KDS, since you and Amused just congratulated yourselves on dodging my questions, I'll ask them again: "... I'd like to know if you plan to do anything yourself to help Mr. Miloscia get back on the taxpayers' payroll. Donations? Phone calls? Traipsing around in the cold rain, explaining to Teabaggers that a tax-and-spend Democrat-turned-Republican is totally not, no way, un-na never a RINO?"

Good luck with all that.

Posted by: tensor on March 10, 2014 01:22 AM
104. @102: No, I couldn't make this shit up.

If a new Million Man March descended on Washington with equal numbers to depose Bush, would these patriots have been as comfortable with them installing Jesse Jackson as President and prosecuting Dick Cheney?

Posted by: demo kid on March 10, 2014 04:29 AM
105. @102: No, I couldn't make this shit up.

If a new Million Man March descended on Washington with equal numbers to depose Bush, would these patriots have been as comfortable with them installing Jesse Jackson as President and prosecuting Dick Cheney?

Posted by: demo kid on March 10, 2014 04:29 AM
106. Be at 3rd and Pike high noon tomorrow with your $300
by jiminy.

By jiminy! I'll teach you a lesson you'll not soon forget, whippersnapper!

Posted by: scottd on March 10, 2014 08:46 AM
107. "By jiminy! I'll teach you a lesson you'll not soon forget, whippersnapper!"

The chances of that happening rank right up there with the chances of Amused giving the $300 to the campaign of tax-and-spend RINO Mark Miloscia, or of Amused and KDS going door-to-door for Miloscia in the cold Autumnal rains.

Posted by: tensor on March 10, 2014 09:35 AM
108. "By jiminy! I'll teach you a lesson you'll not soon forget, whippersnapper!"

Well, if Amused hopes to teach us that wingnuts welch on bets, Mark, the Redneck Welcher took care of that one years ago.

"If a new Million Man March descended on Washington..."

I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of a tribunal consisting of Issa, Walker, DeMint, Paul and Cruz.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 10, 2014 09:36 AM
109. All of the foregoing rhetoric reinforces my belief & support of term limits...state wide & nationally.

Posted by: susu on March 10, 2014 09:44 AM
110. At 100, 102, 105, 106 thru 109,

Nice job boys (girls, boy/girls, whatever?).

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 10, 2014 09:51 AM
111. This is a smart move for Mark Milsocia.

Its hard to run as a Democrat these days and becoming more and more difficult as all of bongo's programs and policies fail miserably.

Welcome Miloscia, you will be among much smarter but most importantly honest and principled people.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 10, 2014 09:52 AM
112. "you will be among much smarter but most importantly honest and principled people"

LMFAO! Too funny.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 10, 2014 10:33 AM
113. We should do him a favor and send Amused's and KDS's comments to Miloscia.

"Hey, Miloscia, meet your new base!"

Heh. Then Miloscia could tailor his next press release to include something about Amused's "nappy-headed, jive-talking bongo".

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 10, 2014 10:44 AM
114. Its hard to run as a Democrat these days because Democrats hold most of our elective offices, a trend which shows no sign of stopping.

Really, that's the third time I've had to fix that for you. Please do try to keep up.

Welcome Miloscia, you will be among ...

He has to win election first. What, if anything, will you do to help him against a popular incumbent? Or is repeating comments on this blog your sole plan for win?

Posted by: tensor on March 10, 2014 10:44 AM
115. "for win?

That you would actually believe you are winning or that someone might lose something/anything here (especially to the likes of you) is interesting and immensely amusing.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 10, 2014 11:14 AM
116. @115: That you would actually believe you are winning or that someone might lose something/anything here (especially to the likes of you) is interesting and immensely amusing.

I offered you $300 of cold, hard cash to back up these statements with a bet on seats in the legislature. You didn't take it.

So... am I to believe you actually have faith that YOU are "winning"? If you really have that opinion, it would be easy money for you. Otherwise, you're just blabbering on and showing how stupid you really are.

Posted by: demo kid on March 10, 2014 11:38 AM
117. At # 114,

The simple fact is that neither you nor I truly know for certain what will happen (either concerning Milosci or nationally) this coming election year.
Neither does anyone else for sure.
Any basic reading of history reveals that change is unpredictable and it is always possible that we will continue on the current leftist path to depression, destruction, and revolution. I understood that there were many stupid people and a lot of corruption in America's electorate so I was not surprised when there were enough fools like you to elect a shameless racist empty suit like bongo . . . and they did. I was just observing reality on its own terms.

Today statistics (polls and such) along with events proving to rational people that the liberal experiment with socialist/crony economics, IRS corruption, international melt-downs and rampant division between people based on race, culture and leftist bigotry, reveal a quite different outlook. The net effect will quite likely combine to create a conservative sea-change nationally and locally. Maybe not . . . who knows? Certainly not you.

Of course you don't have to agree with this (I hope you don't) but it is true and the fact that you pretend these problems don't exist is not a problem for me. It is however an amusing instance of intentional projection of fear and loathing on your part that will be an important part of the defeat of the left, and I encourage it.

People read these comments. Your contributions provide excellent examples of churlish arrogant denial and obdurate stupid inanity that further reinforces my thesis that a conservative sea-change can and very likely will prevail.

So, thanks for your contributions and keep em' coming.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 10, 2014 11:55 AM
118. "Or is repeating comments on this blog your sole plan for win?"

Given that you continued commenting with no other plan, realistic or not, described therein, I'll take those comments as a bloated "yes."

"People read these comments."

Interestingly, awhile back pudge was asked to square his repeated claims of influencing readers with the fact that liberal candidates and causes keep besting conservative ones in real elections. He admitted he didn't have enough readers "to swing an election." It appears Mr. Miloscia's return to public office will require help you are unwilling or unable to give.

Posted by: tensor on March 10, 2014 12:16 PM
119. @117: That just sounds like backpedaling, after comment upon comment about how the Democrats were going to lose!

But hey, "quite likely" sounds like great odds for you to predict a "conservative sea-change nationally and locally". The $300 bet still stands if you want to put your beliefs to the test.

Posted by: demo kid on March 10, 2014 12:16 PM
120. At # 116,

"I offered you $300 of cold, hard cash to back up these statements with a bet on seats in the legislature. You didn't take it.

It never ceases to amuse me the depth of pre-pubescent inanity to which you will sink to prove what a fool you are.

And . . . "chickened out?" I might have had a tiny element of respect for your SILLY-ASS challenge had you offered a more serious sum like $3000, or $30,000, but you offer $300? Public school teachers are paid a lot (to exploit children). . . who's the coward?

These self-revelations are very humorous.

PLEASE NOTE:
There are no statements or seats to back up you drooling foolish moron.
Why would anyone [besides you] make such a pointless stupid bet?
And what would it prove either way genius?

I don't want your money and I don't bet with money; I have plenty of my own that I earned the hard way with honest hard work serving the genuine needs of people - something you might try sometime.
My interest is in preserving a country where people will be allowed to do as I have done and be able to give large portions of it to help those who genuinely need it - something else you might try sometime. Instead, avaricious thieving assholes like you want to take my earnings and give it to your chosen lazy friends so you can pretend to be generous and virtuous.

Avaricious thieving assholes like you may continue to win in the coming election cycle, but I seriously doubt it.

Thanks for your help.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 10, 2014 12:53 PM
121. @120: It never ceases to amuse me the depth of pre-pubescent inanity to which you will sink to prove what a fool you are.

It's not "pre-pubescent inanity"... it is a well-known approach for gauging level of belief through bidding in a market.

And . . . "chickened out?" I might have had a tiny element of respect for your SILLY-ASS challenge had you offered a more serious sum like $3000, or $30,000, but you offer $300? Public school teachers are paid a lot (to exploit children). . . who's the coward?

You're REALLY backpedaling now. If it doesn't mean anything to you, then put it up. Otherwise... yes, you are chickening out.

There are no statements or seats to back up you drooling foolish moron.

No, you have a level of belief in a certain idea -- that the Democrats will lose significantly because of a massive conservative "sea-change". I'm challenging your belief in that outcome, especially since isn't informed by rational thought, and I'm providing a way that we can measure your level of belief versus mine.

Looks like I'm winning.

I don't want your money and I don't bet with money; I have plenty of my own that I earned the hard way with honest hard work serving the genuine needs of people - something you might try sometime.

I don't typically bet, but this is no different than investing in the futures market. In fact, it's BETTER, since you think it is "quite likely" that the Republicans will sweep elections. You're coming out ahead even if this represents a 50.001% chance in your mind.

Instead, avaricious thieving assholes like you want to take my earnings and give it to your chosen lazy friends so you can pretend to be generous and virtuous.

Pfffft. You have a lot to learn about what progressives actually believe, my friend. And hey, I'm proposing that you earn $300 through the free market. Can't get any more conservative/libertarian than that.

Avaricious thieving assholes like you may continue to win in the coming election cycle, but I seriously doubt it.

Again, if you "seriously doubt it", then put your money where your mouth is. If you don't, you're just talking out of your ass.

Posted by: demo kid on March 10, 2014 01:24 PM
122. It's not "pre-pubescent inanity"... it is a well-known approach for gauging level of belief through bidding in a market.

The false basis you use at "Intrade Prediction Markets" as "gauging level of belief through bidding in a market" shows your witless premise baseless and your knowledge of investing undeveloped. Neither of the words "bet" or "belief" are mentioned on your cite.

Double-down dumb:
"I don't typically bet, but this is no different than investing in the futures market."

"Investing" in markets is only ever "betting" to the silly witlessness of a novice who likes to throw away money. Betting on something as volatile and unpredictable as politics is a -pay close attention here ding-dong- STUPID WASTE OF MONEY. That is part of why only an arrogant pretentious dipshit like you would ever do it.

instead why not give you $300 to someone who really needs it like the Lions Club, Soroptimists, or Rotary who do good things for people that need help. Alternatively, as a liberal, why not give it to the government so they can help lazy-asses like you to sit around and play with themselves. Better yet, act like most of your liberal friends, give it to a casino, then lie to everyone that you won $5000.

Looks like I'm winning.

How happy for you . . . then will mommy take you to the zoo?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 10, 2014 02:01 PM
123. If Amused ever starts going door-to-door in Federal Way he'll soon discover that the city is now only half white and young, with lots of millinials, and that his "nappy-headed, jive-talking bongo" slurs aren't going to to go over very well. But I suppose the real fun will start when he knocks on a Republican household's door and tries to sell them on his pro-labor, pro-union, tax-increasing, teacher salary-raising, lifetime upon the government payroll candidate.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 10, 2014 02:14 PM
124. At # 123,

Like to go out there with me gazootie?

I can knock on doors, point to you, and you can pick your nose and eat it for them.
This will go over especially well if you admit as you start "My name is rootie gazootie, I am your typical liberal democrat, and I practice disgusting degenerate habits to show everyone how uniquely liberal I am."

You would be an instant hit just like you are here, and you would make my case for me without my needing to say a word.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 10, 2014 02:27 PM
125. Neither of the words "bet" or "belief" are mentioned on your cite [sic]

Amused invests in companies and business plans in which he has no belief of success. Looks like his claim to be a well-off philanthropist can go in with his other unsupported claims.

Betting on something as volatile and unpredictable as politics... would be a great, free-market way to cash in on that upcoming "conservative sea-change" you were babbling about a few comments ago.

But, those Las Vegas odds-makers, who give us lines on election outcomes, just don't know their business very well, eh?

Since Amused has, to date, invested exactly zero dollars and zero hours into getting tax-and-spend RINO Mark Miloscia elected, we can easily conclude just what Amused truly believes about whether or not Miloscia's just-announced campaign is a good bet or not.

Posted by: tensor on March 10, 2014 02:35 PM
126. tensor @ 125:

" tax-and-spend RINO Mark Miloscia"

Prior to being a RINO, he was just a run-of-the-mill tax-and-spend Democrat, right tensor?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 10, 2014 02:45 PM
127. At # 125,

Y a a a wn . . . that's nice for you . . .
And all you got.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 10, 2014 02:47 PM
128. Nice job liberal democrat boys (girls boy/girls or whatever?)scottd, tensor, demokid, gazootie and MBS.

Among other things, this thread reinforces the very lowest estimates of leftist economic IQ and outlook. Tax and spend is all you know because you have no concept of money and what it represents and how an economy operates. Instead you are steeped in murky notions like that a market "investment" is a "bet" and a "tax" is always just obtaining a "fair share" from someone who has money to give a just minimum to another who has less. This is mostly because you were "educated" by other liberals (like demokid) who demand that you to file in line behind them and follow the path to a non-existent leftist utopian fantasy.

It always seemed doubtful to me that people actually think like the nitwits here because I am mostly surrounded with intelligent people who understand economics and our market-based system and because of it produce the largesse that liberals like you take for granted.

I am no big-shot or rich investor--just an average guy who paid close attention through school and went out in the world, made my own way, and did very well. I had to dodge liberal nitwits and unions and their mentality because I didn't want to be a lazy parasitic petty-criminal.

But, in college I was aware that my Econ 101 professor believed in Keynes and Keynesian nonsense even though he admitted that it doesn't work very well. He believed in it because he was hung up on the notion of equality before merit and his theory worked for him because he didn't have to actually apply what he taught. I received a 4.0 from him mostly because I did all of the work, aced the tests and never argued with him. If he is still alive he certainly believes the same stupid crap today.

In real life, Keynesian economics don't work AT ALL. Most liberals are too shallow and lazy to deal with reality on its own terms and you democrat boys (girls boy/girls or whatever?), scottd, tensor, demokid and MBS all clearly demonstrate these manifest facts with your comments.

Politics is one thing and governance is quite another. Democrats are good at getting themselves elected but lousy at governing. Just because I care about doing the right thing never meant that I would reject someone wise enough to come over to my side. Mark Milosica may be another of you clowns I don't know. If he wants to do honest conservative service to our community, I'll help him, and if not, not.

Either way, I appreciate the insight into your condition as revealed by what you bring to the table.
Thanks

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 10, 2014 03:44 PM
129. "Prior to being a RINO, he was just a run-of-the-mill tax-and-spend Democrat..."

Yes, I believe that is how all of the posters, and most of the commenters, would have so described him back then. (Why, it's almost like party label matters more than actions or beliefs with some of this crowd!!)

"And all you got."

You putting neither your money nor your effort where your mouth is does indeed make for dull "news". Please do let us know if you ever intend to act upon any of your very many, (very loudly) stated beliefs.

Posted by: tensor on March 10, 2014 03:48 PM
130. tensor @ 129,

OK, so we're agreed - Democrats are tax-and-spend, and when they jump parties they are still tax-and-spend. At least that seems to be your meme.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 10, 2014 04:06 PM
131. "OK, so we're agreed - Democrats are tax-and-spend, and when they jump parties they are still tax-and-spend. At least that seems to be your meme."

Dan - I wasn't working from your gross generalizations, but from the specific information found about Mr. Miloscia in the links provided in the post and comments, above. I'll leave it to your professional colleagues to decide if your manner of thinking comports with good scientific practice.

Also, I don't normally provide an adjective if the inherent nature of the noun already implies it. I don't usually describe water as wet, for example. I was using "tax-and-spend" to refer to a politician running on the Republican ticket because, rightly or wrongly, that description does not normally attach to Republicans.

Posted by: tensor on March 10, 2014 04:27 PM
132. @128: Among other things, this thread reinforces the very lowest estimates of leftist economic IQ and outlook.
No, what's becoming clear is that you don't know basic economics.

Tax and spend is all you know because you have no concept of money and what it represents and how an economy operates.
If you don't know what a futures market is, you don't know how a modern economy operates.

Instead you are steeped in murky notions like that a market "investment" is a "bet" and a "tax" is always just obtaining a "fair share" from someone who has money to give a just minimum to another who has less.
ALL market investments have some risk that you will not get paid back what you expect, or may even take a loss. Furthermore, derivatives such as futures are essentially bets that a price will rise or fall. Wheat futures may not be roulette, but both are defined by probability, risk, and payout and are effectively "bets".

So if I bet you $50 that wheat prices will fall, how is that ANY different than buying $50 of wheat futures and receiving the same payouts or losses as our bet?

It always seemed doubtful to me that people actually think like the nitwits here because I am mostly surrounded with intelligent people who understand economics and our market-based system and because of it produce the largesse that liberals like you take for granted.
If the "intelligent people" that you surround yourself with cannot understand the nature of risk and probability, I don't think they're intelligent about economics or finance.

I am no big-shot or rich investor...
Obviously.

...just an average guy who paid close attention through school...
Not close enough, apparently.

and went out in the world, made my own way, and did very well.
Just shows that you don't need brains to make money.

I had to dodge liberal nitwits and unions and their mentality because I didn't want to be a lazy parasitic petty-criminal.
Liberals and unions as a whole are not, and you haven't shown them to be. All you've done is spout off about them, and not outline any rational reasons for your opinion.

But, in college...
A completely unsubsidized, private institution, of course.

I was aware that my Econ 101 professor believed in Keynes and Keynesian nonsense even though he admitted that it doesn't work very well.
Neither does the Laffer Curve, but that doesn't stop conservative politicians from blabbering on about that nonsense.

He believed in it because he was hung up on the notion of equality before merit and his theory worked for him because he didn't have to actually apply what he taught.
Most economics professors I know are actually quite active in consulting, and in fact "apply what they teach".

I received a 4.0 from him mostly because I did all of the work, aced the tests and never argued with him. If he is still alive he certainly believes the same stupid crap today.
You got a 4.0 and you cannot understand risk and derivatives? I think you should ask for your money back.

In real life, Keynesian economics don't work AT ALL. Most liberals are too shallow and lazy to deal with reality on its own terms and you democrat boys (girls boy/girls or whatever?), scottd, tensor, demokid and MBS all clearly demonstrate these manifest facts with your comments.
I'm not really a fan of orthodox Keynesianism, but there are still some reasonable ideas there. Counter-cyclical investment by government, for one, makes sense if applied correctly. You're opposing Keynesian economics on (weak) philosophical grounds, not on economic ones.

Politics is one thing and governance is quite another. Democrats are good at getting themselves elected but lousy at governing.
But here you were saying that there was a conservative wave coming and it was hard for Democrats to get elected. Backpedaling?

Just because I care about doing the right thing...
I see no evidence of this.

...never meant that I would reject someone wise enough to come over to my side.
Of course, as we mentioned, he's likely operating in his self-interest, and not because Republicans are intrinsically right (since they're not).

Mark Milosica may be another of you clowns I don't know. If he wants to do honest conservative service to our community, I'll help him, and if not, not.
The only clown is someone who says that he understands economics but doesn't, or says that he got a 4.0 in economics but will not take practically risk-free money (in your own mind).

Posted by: demo kid on March 10, 2014 05:35 PM
133. At # 131,

Tensor writes [seriously],"I don't usually describe water as wet, for example.
Hard to imagine someone whose manner of thinking comports so precisely with such good scientific practice.

Maybe if you "can" this gobbledy-gook crappola of yours, you could step-up and lie for the bongo administration and be a secretary of scientific practices or something? That would be a hoot.
And then you could have an ice cream cone.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 10, 2014 05:45 PM
134. Amused -- I was making fun of Dan's simple-minded, gross generalization, which he wrongly claimed to have gotten from something I had written. If you don't see an element of ridicule in my statement, "I don't usually describe water as wet, for example[,]" then I cannot help you.

I do note, however, that you neither recognized nor criticized Dan's basic error, extrapolation from a single example. Given your claims about economics rely heavily on personal anecdotes, instead of verified statistical evidence, this failure of yours isn't surprising.

Posted by: tensor on March 10, 2014 06:00 PM
135. At # 134,

Thanks for explaining yourself to me.
In all that gobbledy-gook crappola of yours, I missed the verified statistical evidence.
Must be written with milk eh?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 10, 2014 06:46 PM
136. "Thanks for explaining yourself to me."

I'll take the compliment when I see some evidence you actually understood any of the explanation.

"In all that gobbledy-gook crappola of yours..."

Nope.

"... I missed the verified statistical evidence."

You could not possibly have missed it, because I didn't include any. I'm not the one presuming to lecture anyone on economics; I was merely remarking on the total inadequacy of your lectures.

"Must be written with milk eh?"

"Boogers," "poop", standing in the rain, name-calling, "milk" -- yep, we have a pretty good idea of where you're coming from.

Posted by: tensor on March 10, 2014 07:00 PM
137. At # 132,

Amazing.

So if I bet you $50 that wheat prices will fall, how is that ANY different than buying $50 of wheat futures and receiving the same payouts or losses as our bet?

Anyone with more than a superficial understanding of economics knows better. You left out the most important elements of "Futures" that distinguish them from a "bet." The money invested is used to produce crops and that is why "Futures" are offered. The wheat producer wants you to win because he wins too. Your bet is a bet, not an investment.

The chances that wheat will produce both good crops and a ROI are far greater than not and definitely nowhere near equal. Escrow sequesters the money and makes no contribution to either political campaign. Furthermore because the factors of production with most commodities are more certain they are nowhere near as volatile as a political bet.

You got a 4.0 and you cannot understand risk and derivatives? Derivatives are different from commodity futures and the fact that you lump them together proves you don't know what you are talking about and just pulling it out of your ass.

Clearly this proves that you are the one who "cannot understand the nature of risk and probability,' and are willing to arrogate knowledge to yourself that is based solely in superficial bullshit.
Many of the "intelligent people" that I surround myself with are very successful at business beyond the compass of your superficial liberal bullshit and while one doesn't necessarily need brains to make money, if one is honest you do, which leaves you out.

Liberals and unions as a whole are not honest but lazy parasitic petty-criminals because liberals tax the rich to give things to others they could get for themselves. This is theft. Petty criminals attach themselves like parasites to government bullies to seize their stuff. Unions use the collective power of workers to extort more than workers deserve and strangle business. In the case of schools they abuse children and our brain-trust.

You show all of the signs of being a union employee. Loyal union employees are by definition lazy, arrogant, and incompetent.

The Laffer Curve is a proven economic factor not a silly theory, but that doesn't stop liberal nitwits like you from deriding it. While the Laffer curve was not created to affect liberal socialism, liberals hate it because it calls for constructive use of taxation.

You say that "most economics professors I know are actually quite active in consulting, and in fact "apply what they teach." If that is true it is only because they apply only the parts of what they teach that actually work.

You claim not to be a fan of orthodox Keynesianism, but cite the aspect of it that does the most harm; counter-cyclical investment by government, an idea that can never be applied correctly if you want a healthy economy.

You're claim that my opinions are philosophical and not on economic after I stated that "Keynesian economics don't work AT ALL" is simply stupid.

Backpedaling-backschmedaling moron you see no evidence of doing the right thing because you have no clue what that might be.

The only clown is someone who says that he understands economics but doesn't, or says that he got a 4.0 in economics but will not take practically risk-free money (in your own mind).

The distinction (and difference) between investing and betting could not be more obvious and clear and you are the simpleton who doesn't get it.

But thanks so much for your arrogant silly foolish comments.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 10, 2014 07:04 PM
138. So yet again, a politician shows what he really thinks about the two party system! It's a GAME to them.

This guy voted LEFT on most issues. And now he is going to be a Republican.

Shows you the direction of the Republican party.

This year I am going to vote for the only party that matters. The ANTI-INCUMBENT party!

Politics is like a drug. Like an addiction. Once someone gets into public office they just can't leave. They will do anything, betray anyone to get their "fix".

Help this guy go Cold Turkey!

Posted by: Steve on March 10, 2014 07:22 PM
139. The Republicans and the Democrats are the SAME PARTY!

Two sides of the SAME PARTY.

The only party that matters now are the Incumbents vs US!

I am no longer a Republican. Never was a Democrat.

I will never understand why somoene is bad when they are Democrat but good when they are a Republican or vice versa. What matters is how someone VOTES.

And this guy VOTES TO THE LEFT.

Everything else is just jersey worship. If you want to root for a team, choose the Seahawks. Then when someone comes over from the Broncos or the 49ners to play for us, yeah root for him as much as you want.

BUT STOP TREATING POLITICS AS A GAME!

Posted by: Steve on March 10, 2014 07:33 PM
140. Idiot at # 138,

"Shows you the direction of the Republican party.

What does it show nitwit?

The ANTI-INCUMBENT party!

You mean the loser-tarians who waste time and energy and get nowhere ever?

Politics is like a drug. Like an addiction.

How the hell would you know? Who are you talkimg about? Be specific.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 10, 2014 07:54 PM
141. @137: Anyone with more than a superficial understanding of economics knows better.
Apparently, your understanding is more superficial than mine.

You left out the most important elements of "Futures" that distinguish them from a "bet." The money invested is used to produce crops and that is why "Futures" are offered. The wheat producer wants you to win because he wins too. Your bet is a bet, not an investment.
No, the obligation is to buy (or sell) a commodity, not to produce it. And the wheat producer doesn't want you to "win" if you buy futures from him... he's paying you to take part of his losses. If you lose, he "wins" (or rather, loses less).

Now, given there's no real need to exchange a commodity, the difference is that I'm betting on price movements instead of a dice roll or flip of a card. Is that a substantive difference?

The chances that wheat will produce both good crops and a ROI are far greater than not and definitely nowhere near equal.
You're just stringing words together at this point. I'm talking about the futures market, not a farm as a business.

Escrow sequesters the money and makes no contribution to either political campaign.
Yep... stringing words together. I'm not talking about escrow or donations or political campaigns.

Furthermore because the factors of production with most commodities are more certain they are nowhere near as volatile as a political bet.
I'm sorry, but the pricing of many commodities (and currency, etc.) is *definitely* volatile. Likewise, many political bets are quite stable. For example, I can guess the popular vote share (or probably even the number of votes cast) for the next Democratic candidate for US President in 2016 to a far greater degree of certainty than I can determine oil prices on election day in 2016.

Clearly this proves that you are the one who "cannot understand the nature of risk and probability,' and are willing to arrogate knowledge to yourself that is based solely in superficial bullshit.
No, I'm saying that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

And that you really like your word-a-day calendar.

Many of the "intelligent people" that I surround myself with are very successful at business beyond the compass of your superficial liberal bullshit...
I'm saying they don't know economics and finance, which seems to be the case if you're "learning" all this from them.

...and while one doesn't necessarily need brains to make money, if one is honest you do, which leaves you out.
I do just fine, thank you. I could make a little more money, but I like what I do and I have a comfortable lifestyle.

Liberals and unions as a whole are not honest but lazy parasitic petty-criminals because liberals tax the rich to give things to others they could get for themselves.
And I find the rich to be lazy parasitic petty-criminals because they try hard to pay less than their fair share for the inputs that make them money. Neither statement is wholly accurate.

This is theft.
Nope. It's managing all of the issues society needs to deal with.

Petty criminals attach themselves like parasites to government bullies to seize their stuff.
"Stuff"? Like your old record collection? A kitchen chair?

Unions use the collective power of workers to extort more than workers deserve and strangle business. In the case of schools they abuse children and our brain-trust.
Unions provide a counterbalance to the negotiating power of their employers, and ensure that workers don't get less than they deserve. In the case of schools, the unions... negotiate and enforce contracts and talk about issues facing teachers in their working environment.

You show all of the signs of being a union employee. Loyal union employees are by definition lazy, arrogant, and incompetent.
Given that I'm working 60-hour weeks on a project and teaching you about economics, I'd hesitate to call myself lazy. I'd be arrogant if I said that you didn't know economics without proof (which you've provided). And I'm certainly not incompetent, since I'm providing you with a better economics education than your ill-fated career in college.

The Laffer Curve is a proven economic factor not a silly theory, but that doesn't stop liberal nitwits like you from deriding it.
No, the Laffer Curve is an excuse. Would you argue that taxes should go up to maximize government revenue if the Laffer Curve recommended it?

While the Laffer curve was not created to affect liberal socialism, liberals hate it because it calls for constructive use of taxation.
No, liberals criticize it because it doesn't make sense the way it is applied, the shape of the curve is not definite, and tax policy is more than just one single number.

You say that "most economics professors I know are actually quite active in consulting, and in fact "apply what they teach." If that is true it is only because they apply only the parts of what they teach that actually work.
Unless you know of an economics professor that actually researches guns and butter, I'd say a lot of professors focus on practical aspects over broad foundational theory.

You claim not to be a fan of orthodox Keynesianism, but cite the aspect of it that does the most harm; counter-cyclical investment by government, an idea that can never be applied correctly if you want a healthy economy.
I agree that the timing of counter-cyclical investment is hard to get right. Many governments also do poorly on the high ends of the cycle, when public investment should be curtailed to favor private investment. However, the concept is better than simply allowing markets to collapse and shedding government jobs along with private ones.

You're claim that my opinions are philosophical and not on economic after I stated that "Keynesian economics don't work AT ALL" is simply stupid.
Your statement is that they don't work at all. For all the problems with Keynesianism, government stimulus through spending during periods of recession do have a positive impact. Cutting back on government expenses during recessions just puts more people out of work.

Backpedaling-backschmedaling moron
You're still backpedaling from your statement about a conservative sea-change, and you're not willing to... errr... "invest in a contract" that would pay you 100% return for something you think will "quite certainly" happen. Who precisely is the moron?

you see no evidence of doing the right thing because you have no clue what that might be.
"Doing the right thing" isn't "following Confused by Everybody's personal philosophies", sorry.

The distinction (and difference) between investing and betting could not be more obvious and clear and you are the simpleton who doesn't get it.
You're not even making a clear distinction or indicating a difference. Plenty of markets exist that deal purely with probabilities of outcomes, where no physical commodities change hands. You don't even have a grasp on these basic parts of our economy, nor about how risk is involved with economics.

In fact, there are only two main differences between the futures market and going to the casino and slapping everything down on black. One, the probabilities in a casino are far better defined, and two, the house doesn't provide you with a good enough payoff to balance your risk of losing.

But thanks so much for your arrogant silly foolish comments.
Why is what I'm saying "arrogant" and "silly", anyway? You can't even refute my statements -- you just blabber on.

Posted by: demo kid on March 10, 2014 09:34 PM
142. At # 141,

I like your theory . . . I'm with you here (in this instance).
So I will "pay you to take part of my losses" by providing you with a bank name, address, and an account number where you can deposit your $300.
Then we can have a "bet."
If I lose, your $300 will pay for my losses, and if I win I keep it.

Truly unbelievably amusing indeed.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 10, 2014 10:45 PM
143. At #141,

Why is what I'm saying [is] "arrogant" and "silly", anyway? You can't even refute my statements -- you just blabber on."

Golly whiz. Because I am correct, refute every sensible thing you say, and you are full of bullshit.

You compared the disparities of betting vs. investing writing " the only two main differences between the futures market [investing] and going to the casino and slapping everything down on black [betting]," is that "the probabilities in a casino are far better defined, and two, the house doesn't provide you with a good enough payoff to balance your risk of losing."

Though not the only differences, these are fundamental, but in your arrogant pretense you repeated the same disparity I illustrated more accurately in context with the larger thesis at # 137, and there you disagreed with it. Which is it?

I wrote,

The chances that wheat will produce both good crops and a ROI are far greater than not and definitely nowhere near equal. The chances that wheat will produce both good crops and a ROI are far greater than not and definitely nowhere near equal. Escrow sequesters the money and makes no contribution to either political campaign. Furthermore because the factors of production with most commodities are more certain they are nowhere near as volatile as a political bet.

Your intentional ignorance of reality makes you look like the continuously petty pretentious arrogant asshole with a very small brain you are.

Thanks.
Keep it up.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 11, 2014 12:00 AM