March 10, 2014
That didn't take long - Eide says she's not running

Though she had filed with the PDC and raised money for a 2014 re-election race, many in Olympia suspected that Democratic state Sen. Tracey Eide of the Federal Way-centered 30th District wasn't going to run again. With former Democratic Rep. Mark Miloscia announcing last Thursday that he was switching parties and running for the Senate, politicos wondered if Eide would make her real intentions known.

Eide ended the speculation today, announcing that she will not run for another term. She said in a statement, "Shortly after my re-election in 2010, I decided that this term would be my last and that I would pour myself into this term and then open the door for someone else. That time is here."

(Question: If you know you have no intention of running for re-election, should you raise and spend campaign cash anyway? Eide raised $31,727 for a 2014 race and spent $13,032 of it.)

The 30th District's other Democrat, Rep. Roger Freeman, told the Times he's looking at the race but the decision will be difficult because Miloscia was a "mentor" to him.

Posted by Adam Faber at March 10, 2014 08:59 PM | Email This
Comments
1. That much further away from re-taking the senate.

Damn, how it sucks to be a leftist.

Posted by: Hinton on March 10, 2014 09:04 PM
2. Eide ended the speculation today, announcing that she will not run for another term.
I'm just wondering what the heck the strategy of the Senate Democrats will be here. The turnover is really having an impact, and I'd be interested in hearing what they plan to do to manage it.

@1: Damn, how it sucks to be a leftist.
It has nothing to do with "being a leftist", and everything to do with ground game and coordination. Definitely need to follow how the WSDP will respond to all of these machinations.

Posted by: demo kid on March 11, 2014 06:24 AM
3. @previous 142-143: 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.
Again, you're speaking nonsense. I hope you're not playing the stock market with that limited understanding of markets.

Golly whiz. Because I am correct, refute every sensible thing you say, and you are full of bullshit.
You cannot even understand the futures market or prediction markets.

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?

You said nothing intelligible there. You were blabbering on about ROI, escrow, and commodities ALWAYS being less volatile than political markets, all of which are either irrelevant or incorrect in a discussion of futures markets.

Farmers deal with commodity futures to reduce downside risk if prices are lower than expected. However, they don't need to commit their own crops to a contract to get this benefit. Chicago traders don't usually take possession of pork bellies they trade.

Your distinctions are less substantive than you think. Instead of betting on roulette, say I bet instead on a Mariners game with a friend, with prices ("bets" or "bids") that we find acceptable given our knowledge. If I also take a position on the weather derivatives market, I can get paid based on the number of cooling degree days in a month. Where is the difference? It is still probability, risk, and payoff.

Yes, gambling is entertainment, the risk profiles favor the house, you can get addicted to gambling, you shouldn't sink your retirement into gambling, etc. However, these ideas can apply to activities in "investing" too, and don't always apply to "gambling". A good bet on a sports team is still worth more than a bad bet on a stock price or business. It's all cultural window dressing. What is important is probability, risk, and payoff.

Anyway, what this tells me is that you don't believe a conservative "sea-change" will really happen. Any rational market-focused conservative would take $300 of my hard-earned money for a "sure thing".

Your intentional ignorance of reality makes you look like the continuously petty pretentious arrogant asshole with a very small brain you are.
What ignorance of reality? You don't understand basic market concepts, and you don't back up your statements when called on them.

Posted by: demo kid on March 11, 2014 06:50 AM
4. Could someone tell me the point of it all?

I mean for those who aren't employed in a political field?

Hinton says it sucks to be a Leftist. No it doesn't. It MAY suck to be a Democrat, this year, just like it sucked to be a Republican just two years ago. So this year the Democrats play down their party affiliation and the Republicans play it up. Most incumbents get re-elected anyway, but so yeah, their rhetoric may change a bit.

Two years from now it may suck to be a Republican again. These things ebb and flow.

But what doesn't ebb and flow is Leftist Public Policy. In "Republican" years, in "Democrat" years once elected the next year in Olympia you get the same type of Leftist public policy.

And for those who aren't engaged politically because they get (or vying to get) a government paycheck isn't that what we think we are trying to do - change public policy, yet it doesn't change. I have been paying attention for 40 years or so, and Republican Senate, Democrat Senate, Democrat Governor, and yeah I can still remember a couple of Republican Governors (been a while though) still Leftist Public policy gets advanced.

GOSH I WISH I COULD BE A LEFTIST. To know regardless of who wins a particular election my beliefs about government is going to get through. To know BOTH political parties will produce the government I wanted. This whole politics thing could be fun.

Damn, how it sucks to be a Conservative. To be betrayed at every turn. To see your fellow conservatives lied to constantly. Yeah, I get to celebrate election wins occasionally, only to be sold out once January rolls around again.

We are trying to Rid ourselves of Leftists in government. In the Republican party in particular. Yet now it looks like we are going to elect another Leftist to a REPUBLICAN office. Another politician to water things down and mute opposition to Leftist public policy. Another politician to become "bipartisan" on a key issue at the worse possible time for conservatives.

So yeah, tell me the point of it all because it sure ain't trying to stop Leftist public policy. To me all I can see it as being about for those of us not financially connected to being in office (which is most of us) is rooting for a team. Rah, Rah Team GOP. Victory for victory sake public policy be damned.

And if that is the case I will stick to the Seahawks. If Russell Wilson ever becomes a 49ner then yeah, hate him. If we ever get a player from the Broncos, yeah, welcome aboard. For the Seahawks the ends was the game night victory. For politics election night victory was always supposed to be a means to the ends, but the ends never developed once the election night excitement was over.

Truth is, look at their PDCs to see who donates to them. You will see names common regardless of party affiliation. In the end government in Olympia runs without the elected officials. It's the bureaucrats and the lobbyists who set the policies, and they always, regardless of which party sucked the previous election, they always govern to the Left.

Posted by: Brian on March 11, 2014 10:46 AM
5. At # 3,

Again, you're speaking nonsense..

Very perceptive genius, figured that out eh?
Feeding back your nonsensical construction of how commodity investment works in context with your proposed "bet" was apt.

Any rational market-focused conservative would take $300 of my hard-earned money for a "sure thing".
And as illustrated by current events, only an economically retarded democrat like you would be dim-witted enough to offer such a bet.

Aren't you glad I didn't immediately take your chicken-shit bet?
Eide's withdrawal kinda proved my point and changed things against your premise didn't it?
Or are you planning to file a "demokid" juggernaut to defeat Mark Miloscia? That would be interesting.

And if [in your pea-sized brain] I was a "rational market-focused conservative" I would have grabbed your bet.
But then I would have to collect it, and there is where the problem comes in with narcissistic pre-pubescent hair-splitting liberal democrats like you.

BTW, who do you suppose would take your $300 in escrow . . . Vito Corleone?
Very amusing.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 11, 2014 11:07 AM
6. "I have been an active conservative for 40 years" and "[T]his is the first year I won't be voting."

Why?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 11, 2014 11:44 AM
7. @9: Feeding back your nonsensical construction of how commodity investment works in context with your proposed "bet" was apt.
Still obvious that you don't understand how economics and basic financial instruments work. You're backpedaling again.

And as illustrated by current events, only an economically retarded democrat like you would be dim-witted enough to offer such a bet.
And STILL you didn't take it. You are really in doubt over this "conservative sea-change".

Aren't you glad I didn't immediately take your chicken-shit bet?
No, it still stands. We set basic ground rules, we bet on the new composition of the legislature, and we put money in escrow. Come November, you or I collect the entire sum back.

Eide's withdrawal kinda proved my point and changed things against your premise didn't it?
Why? Your premise was that there would be a "conservative sea-change". That doesn't include flipping individual seats in one house because of a turncoat Democrat.

Or are you planning to file a "demokid" juggernaut to defeat Mark Miloscia? That would be interesting.
"File"? You're not making sense. I'm not in his district.

But then I would have to collect it, and there is where the problem comes in with narcissistic pre-pubescent hair-splitting liberal democrats like you.
Plenty of systems to do it. Just admit that you're doubtful of "conservative sea-change".

BTW, who do you suppose would take your $300 in escrow . . . Vito Corleone?
Again, plenty of reputable services online, and other solutions exist. You're just making excuses.

Heck, I'll even do you one better. Instead of simply making money off this, we select appropriate charities to receive the proceeds. If I win, your money goes to the ACLU or another charity of my choosing. If you win, then money goes to clubbing baby seals or something. (No political campaigns, though.)

Posted by: demo kid on March 11, 2014 11:48 AM
8. At #2,

"I'm just wondering what the heck the strategy of the Senate Democrats will be here. The turnover is really having an impact, and I'd be interested in hearing what they plan to do to manage it.

Double-down and lose.

It's called a political re-alignment, or in this instance conservative "sea-change."
Ever heard of that?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 11, 2014 11:49 AM
9. @8: I have been an active conservative for 40 years. This is the first year I won't be voting. Nationally and locally I just don't see the point.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Sir Winston Churchill

Posted by: demo kid on March 11, 2014 11:50 AM
10. Could someone tell me the point of it all?

It goes round and round and where it stops no one but God knows. Whether or not liberalism is defeated in either the democrat or Republican parties is a purely spiritual question and being the basic evil it is we must do our best not to give into it and try our best to defeat it.

Politics follows culture and our culture is very sick right now. However, there are signs of people en-masse hungering for conservatism.
As you can see (at # 14) demokid entices me to bet that a conservative sea-change will happen, and as history proves, it certainly can. Which way, it will go no one knows . . . certainly not demokid. The point is, win-lose-or-draw, do the right thing,and vote for people who will do (at least most of) the right things.

My argument has much more merit than his but I don't bet on such things because it is wrong. He likens such a bet to an investment which shows his lack of basic understanding of things in general.
I will however "invest" my donations and assistance to Republican candidates and campaigns because they are the only ones who have any possibility of solving our problems.

Either way politics and political parties depend upon our culture and if that continues the way it is going, a Republican majority will probably not be enough to turn things around.

The bible (Ecclesiastes) has answers along these lines.
Apart from that this is the last place to get an answer to your very good question.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 11, 2014 12:17 PM
11. Putting aside the left and right ranting, what amazes me on Adam's post is how costly even state races have become. Can a standard person even consider running without becoming beholden to contributors, whoever they are (left or right)? Most average citizens wouldn't have $30K to invest. Has politics become the occupation of the rich or well-connected?

Posted by: tc on March 11, 2014 12:23 PM
12. @15: Whether or not liberalism is defeated in either the democrat or Republican parties is a purely spiritual question and being the basic evil it is we must do our best not to give into it and try our best to defeat it.
Basic evil? Please. While I consider many conservatives to be reptilian, I don't consider conservatism as wholesale evil, only wrong about many things.

Politics follows culture and our culture is very sick right now.
People have been saying that "culture is very sick" for literally thousands of years, even when it obviously isn't. Just like you don't know economics, you obviously don't know sociology or history.

However, there are signs of people en-masse hungering for conservatism.
Yes! Because there's nothing more that people want than to get screwed by the rich, or to experience savage social Darwinism at its worst, as hardcore conservatives profess.

My argument has much more merit than his...
You have NEVER shown that your argument has merit. You profess, you make broad statements, but insults are not "arguing" or "debating". You're a fraud that believes that everyone should think the way he does.

...but I don't bet on such things because it is wrong.
Investing in something is a sign that you have sincere belief. I offered you a 100% rate of return on an investment you said was a sure thing and you turned it down. Proponents of free market economics would think that to be wrong.

He likens such a bet to an investment which shows his lack of basic understanding of things in general.
It other words... you're a chickenshit that doesn't even have the stones to back up what he believes. Gotcha.

I will however "invest" my donations and assistance to Republican candidates and campaigns because they are the only ones who have any possibility of solving our problems.
If you think that politicians are the ones that have any possibility of solving our problems, you're a fool.

Either way politics and political parties depend upon our culture and if that continues the way it is going, a Republican majority will probably not be enough to turn things around. The bible (Ecclesiastes) has answers along these lines.
Ecclesiastes 7:10 - Do not say, "Why were the old days better than these?" For it is not wise to ask such questions.

Posted by: demo kid on March 11, 2014 12:32 PM
13. @11: Has politics become the occupation of the rich or well-connected?

Was it ever not?

Posted by: demo kid on March 11, 2014 01:22 PM
14. At # 12,

My Q: Eide's withdrawal kinda proved my point and changed things against your premise didn't it?

Your A:Why? Your premise was that there would be a "conservative sea-change". That doesn't include flipping individual seats in one house because of a turncoat Democrat.

As you say you "don't typically bet, but this is no different than investing in the futures market."
So in the "demokid handbook of commodities trading" you would advise investors to ignore commodities trends and just "bet?"

In the face of wide-spread national discussion of general wheat crop problems, and the announcement by a local wheat producer of his move from wheat to soy beans and another almost immediate local announcement his prospective wheat producing competitor that she is quitting, I would conclude that wheat today is a more volatile investment than it was last week. I would also look closely at the future prospects for wheat production.

But maybe that's just me - you know - common sense - like checking the oil, and looking both ways at intersections?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 11, 2014 01:24 PM
15. "Whether or not liberalism is defeated in either the Democrat or Republican parties is a purely spiritual question".

No, it's a practical one. When you elect a Leftist to office, that helps the Left. When you elect a Leftist to the Republican party that makes the party turn to the Left.

A Republican party that votes in Leftist public policy helps the Left.

A win because the guy has name recognition isn't a long term win. It fades quickly as the guy you elect stabs you in the back. How many times have we seen such "bipartisanship" at key moments leading to wins for the Left when it comes to public policy.

Look, in 1994 Republicans took over the Washington State Senate. Next year 1995 the same kind of policies came out of Olympia.

Don't expect anything different if Republicans take over this time either. It's the Lobbyists and the Bureaucrats who run things in Olympia, The politicians are just there for window dressing.

So again, why should anyone care about who wins or who loses. Today's Democrat Politician quite literally could become tomorrow's Republican and vice versa.

And the Policies of the Left continues through Republicans through Democrats though Republicans and back again.

So why would any conservative waste time, energy or money on politics given that while Republicans may win at times the policies of the Left never loses.

Posted by: Brian on March 11, 2014 01:38 PM
16. However, there are signs of people en-masse hungering for conservatism."

They were in 1994 too. They didn't get it in 1995.

And they are not going to get it by electing a Leftist Republican (his votes as a Democrat were for the most part that of the Left).

Can't get conservatives by voting for Leftist Republicans. You just make the Republican Party more Leftist. Didn't we learn that in 2010 when the only thing the Tea Party gave us was Gay Marriage (the Republicans elected that year were the KEY votes on that issue).

Conservatives made a big mistake being so party focused. We need to be issue focused.

In the end this could backfire. I mean I bet that the Republicans really Demonized this candidate as a Democrat. And now the same Republicans who spent a generation telling everyone how bad this guy is are going to say, what...NEVER MIND (wasn't that a Saturday Night Live Skit).

Meanwhile the Democrats are going to find someone who really believes in things. Look, I don't believe most people are ideological like I am, but I do believe that they like people who believe in things. Republicans are going to come out as hypocritical trying to support someone they spent a generation tearing down. Meanwhile the Democrats can take advantage of an anti-incumbent mood and really energize their base. The Republican base will not be energized by a retread Democrat being their standard bearer.

But regardless, it doesn't matter, except to those who receive a paycheck from getting these people elected. Regardless of who is elected come January, policy wise Liberalism will flourish as it always does.

Posted by: Brian on March 11, 2014 01:53 PM
17. @14: So in the "demokid handbook of commodities trading" you would advise investors to ignore commodities trends and just "bet?"
One point is not a trend or a local and national "sea-change". One seat having a greater chance of flipping due to a party switch doesn't amount to a conservative movement.

I would conclude that wheat today is a more volatile investment than it was last week.
You can't even get basic concepts right. "Volatility" is NOT the same thing as a trend. Upward or downward price movements spurred by clear information can certainly have low volatility.

So in the "demokid handbook of commodities trading" you would advise investors to ignore commodities trends and just "bet?"
If you put money on a trend, you're DEFINITELY betting that it will continue, and you will lose money if it doesn't. Again, probability, risk, return/payoff.

But maybe that's just me
Yes, it's just you.

- you know - common sense
Hardly.

Posted by: demo kid on March 11, 2014 02:02 PM
18. A win for the Republican Party is not necessarily a win for Conservatives.

Took me 10 years to figure that out.

Most Republicans are empty suits. They are only in office because they like the title. They lie to get elected.

This is true for a few Democrats too. But I would say most Democrats are there because they believe things.

WRONG THINGS. BUT GIVE THEM CREDIT, THEY BELIEVE IN THEM.

And in the long run what wins is not those who are right but those who believe in things. Even WRONG THINGS.

Well, I will no longer fight for a party who believes IN NOTHING! Why waste my money, my time, my energy. It's not worth some real costs in terms of my health.

Posted by: Brian on March 11, 2014 02:09 PM
19. "sea-change"

In 1992 Bill Clinton was elected

In 1994 we had a Republican "Revolution".

In 1996 Bill Clinton was re-elected.

In 2008 Obama was elected.

In 2010 Tea Party gets the House of Representatives back for Republicans

In 2012 Obama re-elected.


Point is both in 1994 and 2010 we thought there was going to be a "sea change" but that isn't what ultimately happened.

Even if this is a bad year for Democrats (I have my doubts and I know that goes against the "smart money") it doesn't mean it's a "sea change". Two years from now we could be back again talking abut how bad it is for the GOP. These things ebb and flow.

But what is important? Is it this Republican vs Democrat "game"?

Is this just for bragging rights here?

Or is it to effect changes in public policy? Because regardless of Republican years or Democrat years LEFTIST Public Policies have moved forward.

I am not in it for bragging rights. I am not in it to "win elections". I am in it to Save the Republic.

And what we have been doing hasn't been working. And I am talking about even when "we" win.

Posted by: Brian on March 11, 2014 02:20 PM
20. Before someone brings the name up, Reagan was never a Democrat elected official. When he wasn't really paying attention to politics he registered (some states you have to do that) as the same party as his Father, which was Democrat.

Reagan never solicited votes as a Democrat candidate. But this guy actually was elected and served as a Democrat elected official.

If anything, the story that seemed to be being played out here is a district that is moving to the Left. Adam said the mayor was a former Republican who turned Democrat who beat a Republican Mayor. I Googled mapped the place and it seems like it has a lot of multi-family housing. That means community that has a lot of turnover with few people having "roots". It also tends to mean a more Democrat demographic.

If Eide resigned because of the competition she is going to be kicking herself come November. I also believe in general it probably will dampen Republican spirits. After all for a generation they have been told this guy was the most absolute evil. Now he is their standard bearer? This is after they lost a guy to the Democrats who they worked side by side by as a Republican. Betrayal isn't fun. It leaves bad taste in ones mouth, even when in this case you are the one who is supposedly "benefitting" from the trade. If this guy will betray people he stood arm and arm with for a generation how much more quickly will he betray you.

And Conservatives right now are feeling pretty betrayed. Especially with what is going on nationally with Republican Leaders all saying we are going to beat back conservatives. So, yeah, backing a guy who has a public record of voting to the Left on all but a few key issues, not real good for "Team Spirit".

Posted by: Brian on March 11, 2014 03:09 PM
21. And what is it that put America in the forefront of the nuclear nations? And what is it that will make it possible to spend 20 billion dollars of your money to put some clown on the moon? Well, it was good old American know-how, that's what. As provided by good old Americans like Dr. Wernher von Braun.

Gather round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun,
A man whose allegiance
Is ruled by expedience.
Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown.
"Ha, Nazi Schmazi," says Wernher von Braun.

Don't say that he's hypocritical,
Say rather that he's apolitical.

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.

Some have harsh words for this man of renown,
But some think our attitude
Should be one of gratitude,
Like the widows and cripples in old London town
Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun.

You too may be a big hero,
Once you've learned to count backwards to zero.
"In German oder English I know how to count down,
Und I'm learning Chinese," says Wernher von Braun.

Posted by: Stan on March 11, 2014 03:12 PM
22. St # 13,

Has politics become the occupation of the rich or well-connected?
Was it ever not?

Of course "well connected" [duh] - but not necessarily rich.
Pam Roach is not rich, nor is Dino Rossi, Susan Hutchison, Pete Von Reichbauer, Mark Hargrove, Dave Riechert, Cathy Dahlquist, Joe Fain, and on and on. All good people.

At # 15,

"The politicians are just there for window dressing.

Wrong.
If you truly believe this, you are lost.

"I am not in it for bragging rights. I am not in it to "win elections". I am in it to Save the Republic.

So am I. But what do you mean "in it?"
Winning elections is the only way to make change.
Are you active, do you go to city hall and talk one on one with leaders? Do you actively support candidates? I do and have and I have been rewarded as my efforts made a real difference in public policy. It is hard and sometimes seems futile, but it is not.


There are people serving today that are not controlled by lobbyists but their own best judgment in our behalf that are fighting the good fight for us. I know them and what they have done to stop democrats from running our state into deeper debt that had they had their way.

And what we have been doing hasn't been working. And I am talking about even when "we" win. I understand your frustration but you are wrong.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 11, 2014 03:23 PM
23. Wernher von Braun. Okay, he got us the moon.

What will this guy get the Republican Party.

Wow, the Senate. The last time Republicans had the Senate they did nothing with it, at least in terms of slowing down the Leftist Agenda. Heck, same types of legislation went through as did the year before when the Democrats were in control. Yeah, it was cool for the specific Republican Senators. They could put Committee Leader on their door, but in the terms of public policy enacted to legislation.

So, if they get the Senate I see what personally is in it for them. But what is in it for us, in the conservative grassroots? It doesn't stop or even slow down the Leftist agenda. It might help developers some. The Tribes will start donating to the campaigns of Republicans, but I am taking about just ordinary grassroots conservatives who aren't effected by any of that.

It actually puts us back, because we are gaining the Senate (if we do) by making our party move to the Left. And I believe that Leftist policies make things worse,not better. So in two years things are going be even worse and then it will be the Democrat year again, and they actually believe in Leftist policies so they will promote it and it will get worse still.

Forty years and I can admit that conservatives just voting for the R doesn't work. Hell, if all I cared about was for election night then I guess I wouldn't have a problem, but this is supposed to be about something more than bragging rights. Or is it?

Posted by: Brian on March 11, 2014 03:27 PM
24. Amused by Liberals, you said Susan Hutchinson isn't rich?

I have been a Republican up to recently so I have to say the Left is right when they talk about how elitist a certain segment which you must belong to is.

Someone who lives in a fancy house in Bellevue is RICH. She had a long, distinguished career in broadcasting and I am not saying that she doesn't deserve her money (as the Left might say) but don't just say she is not rich. That just shows condemn for the middle class.


And, I don't know these others you list nor if they are "good people" (I don't read "hearts" just voting records) but I am guessing they probably are rich as well. Well at least most of them. Rossi for one, I do remember he was in real estate wasn't it. Owns several apartment complexes. Probably worked hard and deserved his wealth but don't deny he has wealth.

Didn't George Bush say that Putin was "Good People". I believe the quote was something like I looked into his eyes and saw a Christian. I have long ago given up reading people 's hearts and souls. I leave that up to God. I look at politicians voting records and I know voting for Gay Marriage was bad policy and someone doing that doesn't deserve re-election.

Judge people by their DEEDS. Ted Bundy had a great personality I have heard from people who met him. And back in the day people just like you were advertising him as "Good People".

Posted by: Brian on March 11, 2014 03:39 PM
25. "Someone who lives in a fancy house in Bellevue is RICH. She had a long, distinguished career in broadcasting and I am not saying that she doesn't deserve her money (as the Left might say) but don't just say she is not rich. That just shows condemn for the middle class."

Contempt. You have contempt for the middle class.

TC is right. There's no way someone in middle class can run for public office unless they have some well healed "friends". And if you take the time to look you will find that these "friends" are often the same "friends" who contribute to other campaigns OF BOTH PARTIES. An alarmingly small percentage of campaign contributions actually come from people within the district the campaign is taking place.

And they get what they pay for. Go to hearings in Olympia and you will see who REALLY RUNS what happens over there. It's the ones who bought the politicians. The Politicians are just there for window dressing. The Bureaucrats and the Lobbyists are the ones who design the laws. Hell lots of these politicians ain't too bright if the truth was told. They couldn't design these bills by themselves and really don't know what they are voting on.

Posted by: Brian on March 11, 2014 03:53 PM
26. You know one thing about Wernher von Braun. He was a Rocket Scientist. He wasn't a Politician. So, yeah... it was possible for him to be 'apolitical'.

Do we want our politicians to be "apolitical". Because that is what we have today. Politicians who are indeed apolitical. Today I am a Democrat, tomorrow perhaps a Republican, then I don't know. Perhaps Democrat again. Doesn't matter. I just want the title. I have no beliefs. I am an empty suit.

I tend not to believe ANYTHING a politician says anymore. Because for all I know he or she is just giving me a line of BS which will change with the political season or even with the crowd the politician happens to be speaking to at the time.

You really depress me Amused. Because you don't do your homework. You allow yourself to be taken in by these people. You don't look at voting Records such as Reichert voting in favor of Cap and Trade. What you shake their hands look into their eyes and just by that you can determine that the politician is a "Good Person" like Bush did with Putin? Like so many did with Ted Bundy?

To be a politician you must be a liar. You would know that if you actually looked at voting records instead of "reading hearts".

Stop believing the lies of Politicians! At best, they have no agenda except getting re-elected. At worse they are actually working for the agenda that you say you are fighting against!

Take this from someone with 40 years of experience.

Posted by: Brian on March 11, 2014 04:04 PM
27. At # 17,

One point is not a trend or a local and national "sea-change". One seat having a greater chance of flipping due to a party switch doesn't amount to a conservative movement.

No one - especially - not me ever said such a thing, and since apparently you can read, you know it. You invented the "one point" part on your own -- silly ass. You can't win even a small point without cheating.

Falsely restating my arguments is not the same as refuting them, it only changes the argument. Pretending that my claims somehow conflated "volatility" with "trends is" -once again--the type of empty sliminess you are noted for. However, you're demonstrated laziness and dishonesty is no surprise.

You claim to work 60 hours a week yet still teach me economics. That means you are using someone elses' time to fart around for your ego on the internet. You are probably some sort of school administrator whose job is protected by a union and who makes several times the amount of money you are worth, and many more times than you earn. Your arrogance and slipperiness comes from having power over people (schoolchildren) that are forced to deal with you because you cannot be fired.

You are very slow to understand an argument and never relent even when you are totally wrong because you are used to getting your own way with people. I would pity you, but instead I am amused by the fact that you only prove that you simply cannot win at anything unless you cheat.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 11, 2014 04:10 PM
28. "You are very slow to understand an argument and never relent even when you are totally wrong because you are used to getting your own way with people."

Why relent if you are getting your own way with people?

If being right mattered we wouldn't be where we are now.

What wins is BELIEF. And the Left has BELIEF.

And the willingness to fight for that BELIEF!. We don't have that willingness, and that is why we will continue to lose.

Look it's not that the whole country or even the whole state for that matter is Leftist. They are as apolitical as Wernher von Braun may or may not be. But most people appreciate sincerely held belief (mistaken as that belief my be) and when they look at Republican Party Politicians they see people WITHOUT a sense of belief or worse ASHAMED of the belief (we will defeat conservatives everywhere coming from a REPUBLICAN). You just don't hear a Democrat even a more moderate one saying we will defeat the extreme of the Democrat party.

Posted by: Brian on March 11, 2014 04:59 PM
29. Oh, you're "Brian" now? What happened to "Steve"?

Posted by: Uhh... on March 11, 2014 05:56 PM
30. Wernher von Braun may or may not be.

I mean "been" of course. I know he is dead.

Look it wasn't like he was a Nazi politician who "switched parties" and became an American politician.

But still, I can see why people were upset.

But yeah, the last time I heard a Democrat politician attack like the extreme Left was the whole "Sister Souljah" thing with Bill Clinton and that was a generation ago and "Sister Souljah" wasn't a politician.

Obama kind of did with his pastor but not really. With Ayers he kind of distanced himself too but he didn't like really go out to say bad things about Ayers.

No, you don't typically hear Democrats attack like Occupy and stuff like that.

But you have Republicans who attack not extreme elements but their base. Republicans who publically show their excitement over "beating them everywhere".

So you have one side (when we talk about politicians) excited about what they believe in and proud (at least not ashamed) to associate with people who believe what they believe in and another side who is hesitant about what they believe (because the truth is they don't believe in anything) then most people don't try to look beyond that to the merits. Obviously they go with the politician who seems excited and sincere about what he or she is talking about.

When Republicans have done their best is when politicians have made a convincing argument for conservatism. When they have done their worse is when they basically have said I agree with the other guy but not as much. I mean the most common thing both McCain and Romney said during their debates against Obama is that "I believe that too". So, if they have so much in common with their opponent it only makes sense to say well if even the guy's opponents agree with him, he must be right. Why go with the imitation when you can have the real thing.

Conservatism can win. It has won elections. The only problem is once the election is over the people who were promoting conservatism didn't really believe in it. They were saying what they needed to say to get elected.

Like I said, so much of what happens in government these days are on "auto pilot". Why do you think the Committees in the House and Senate work even when the politicians are not there? They do, on the off season, They work on bills that will be proposed at the next session. But how can they do that not knowing the result of the next election?

Its because the elections don't matter. What gets passed next session will get passed next session regardless of which party is in control.

It's all just a "Dog and Pony Show" with the politicians. The bureaucrats have gotten together ahead of time with the special interest politicians to plan how it will ultimately go down.

So, no elections don't matter. Yeah it matters to the politicians who could lose their jobs and those who work for them but over 90 percent of them get re-elected so the elections don't really matter much to them either.

Posted by: Brian on March 11, 2014 06:10 PM
31. Special interest lobbyists I mean, Look at the PDCs for any incumbent, doesn't matter party or district and the same names pop up over and over again. Most money in campaigns come from outside the district where the campaign takes place.

http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/Candidate/leg_candidates

Posted by: Brian on March 11, 2014 06:17 PM
32. At # 31,

There appears to be only one solution for you.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 11, 2014 06:37 PM
33. Did anyone see that speed skater Viktor Ahn during the Olympics?

Did he offend anyone here like he offended me or am I just being "old fashioned"?

Viktor Ahn was a South Korean who gave his citizenship up and became a "Russian" (his birth name was Ahn Hyun-soo).

Look I guess I would understand it if his family escaped from a Korean Concentration work camp to Russia. Yes, I know that would be North Korea, not South Korea and that is my point. Under his circumstance I find NO justification. It just seems wrong.

When I grew up loyalty meant something. The Beach Boys sang:


So be true to your school now
Just like you would to your girl or guy
Be true to your school now
And let your colors fly
Be true to your school

I grew up under this belief. But now you have people giving up their citizenship for tax purposes. Loyalty seems to be for suckers.

So, yeah, I guess I am a sucker, but how can I support anyone who "changes team" even when they change to my team. They betrayed people before why do you think they won't betray you.

Look, I get it with professional teams. Someone pays you more you go with the team that pays you more. If you are let go from one team obviously you are going to look for a job with another team. In fact if you are "traded" you have to go to another team. You don't have a choice in the matter.

But this is about what someone believes, or claims to believe. This guy was in office for years helping his fellow Democrats, And now he switches? It does have the feeling of yeah treason. You are fighting in the trenches and then one night you slip over to the other side and help them.

Look if I was CIA and a KGB agent deflects obviously I am going to use the information that he betrays. But there's a key difference. Usually CIA would keep KGB agents on a short leash. They wouldn't let them run their own ops. There was always the quiet legitimate concern that the KGB agent would be what was known as a Double Agent.

So, why couldn't this guy be a double agent. Look, if he could like maybe apologize for why he voted the way he did for all those years, explain the errors in his thinking back then and what was the life changing experience that made him turn, then perhaps, but it would have to be quite an apology, one that would bring tears to ones eyes.

And even then why choose someone who has been wrong in the past over someone who has never been wrong, There isn't any one there that can explain the conservative position better than him?

But the truth is that it doesn't sound like he is running as a conservative. He doesn't renounce his past. In that case, then what does a political party stand for if not issues? Why would I be part of a political party if it stands for all the stuff I opposed. I might as well join the Democrats.

Got off track a bit but doesn't loyalty mean anything to anyone anymore. Guess not. Just a sucker I am. Well I will never ever renounce the United States just to pay less and it will always make me sick to see people who do!

Posted by: Beth on March 11, 2014 07:01 PM
34. Wait, now you're "Beth"? A few months ago you were "Steve", today you were "Brian", and now you're "Beth"? They ought to ban your comments for abuse. All your crap is just repetitive B.S. anyway.

Posted by: Uhh... on March 11, 2014 07:13 PM
35. Beth, what gets me is 75 percent of the time this blog is all about "Loyalty".

They tell us that WE must support the most terrible of people, some of the worse scumbags imaginable. Regardless of what they promote. Regardless of how they attack us. All because they have an R in front of them.

Party is absolute. So they say.

Until it comes to situations like this. Politicians don't have to have any regard to party. Not at all.

It's always a one way street.

I value loyalty too, up to a point. I would never renounce my citizenship because well my team didn't pick me (like that skater did) or for tax purposes but yeah, if the government was to threaten my family yeah, some loyalties are more important than others. Mind you I don't think a situation like that would happen with the United States, although I say this with less confidence than a decade ago.

What the Republican Party offers the conservative movement is the prospect of being a "Beaten Spouse". And while I believe in honoring wedding vows, surely I would tell anyone who was in the situation of being a beaten spouse to get out of the relationship.

As a conservative the Republican Party offers me nothing. They want to govern to the Left. And governing to the Left is going to harm my State (and my country when we talk about that level). It harms the Left just as much when the Republicans do it as the Democrat do it. But when the Republicans do it, they take the blame.

It's not a coincidence that our most Leftist Democrats have followed our most Leftist Republicans when it comes to Presidents. Governing to the Left fails so when a Republican President tries it the President fails.

But the Press ironically spins it to be a failure of "conservatism" (since Republican equals conservative is the myth). So the Democrat gets in and tries even more Liberalism which fails even worse that leads to another Leftist Republican whose policies fail and so on. It's a spiral.

Isn't ultimate victory for the Left not merely getting their policies enacted but having their adversary actually be the ones to enact the policies. When you get your opponent to work in your interests that is total control.

So, what amused is talking about is suicide. Amused is telling Conservatives to become Liberals. Well if Conservatives become liberals they no longer exist as Conservatives. Amused is encouraging the Zombie invasion of the Conservative movement. They bite you and you become one of the them.

How is that not victory for the Left? How is that not suicide for the Right?

When the Left wins I don't see the effects as merely they get the bragging rights. There are real consequences. And when Republicans are the ones doing the Leftist policies they get the blame when it fails, which leads to the Democrats winning.

Posted by: Brian on March 11, 2014 07:46 PM
36. Seriously, "Brian" is now responding to "Beth"...like these are different people. Obviously this is the same author. Ban this guy!

Posted by: Uhh... on March 11, 2014 07:48 PM
37. "It harms the Left just as much when the Republicans do it as the Democrat do it. But when the Republicans do it, they take the blame."

I mean the Leftist policies harm regardless of whether a Republican does it or a Democrat does it but when a Republican does it the Republican takes the blame for the failure. And when the Republican is to blame the press spins it to be a failure of conservatism when the exact opposite is the truth and that leads to some Democrat who wants even more Liberalism.

Encouraging the Republican party to move to the Left just means a big time victory for the Democrat in the future (1992, 2008) which will lead to more liberalism.

If there was no Republican party the bankruptcy of Leftist ideology would be much more apparent.

So yeah, Republicans might win this year. Two years from now it will be the Democrats turn. Rah, Rah, Rah, but Leftist policies will prevail regardless.

Posted by: Brian on March 11, 2014 08:08 PM
38. Some say keep your friends close, and your enemies closure. But do you really want to let your enemy in your front door.

This seems like a more appropriate quote.

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear."

We are stuggling with the RINOS we already have in

Posted by: Brian on March 11, 2014 08:28 PM
39. We are struggling with the RINOS we already have within the Republican party. Why would we want to add another one. You are right Beth, this guy has never renounced his Leftist votes or explained why he changed so dramatically in his views. In fact it sounds like he hasn't changed in his views.

Reagan was never a Democrat elected official. And although he was never a Democrat elected official he apologized for even Registering as a Democrat when he was not political aware,

And I believe his speech in 1964 gave a clear explanation to his beliefs.

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/timechoosing.html

I have not seen something similar from this guy. This guy has no core positions. I remember Reagan. This guy is no Reagan!

Posted by: Brian on March 11, 2014 08:38 PM
40. So Brian, are you going to just ignore the accusations that you, "Beth", and "Steve" are all just you? It's pretty pathetic to write responses to yourself under different names and pretend there's some sort of conversation going on here when you're really just talking to yourself.

Posted by: Uhh... on March 11, 2014 08:59 PM
41. The pendulum is starting to swing. Miloscia looks like its his race to lose. Could leftism is losing its luster to the milennials, in spite of the dumbing down of the Education system by the WEA arm of the Democrat-statist party ? Stay tuned.

Posted by: KDS on March 11, 2014 09:44 PM
42. Brian, Beth, Steve or whoever you want to be - consider that we have a dysfunctional government, brought on in a good portion by the gerrymandering of congressional districts. This has created more extreme right and left politicians in Congress - a recipe for dysfunctional government, nor to mention the most extremist ideological president ever/ who is delusional and in denial of his abysmal foreign policy.

What do you suggest ? I don't think you are much better than the resident Obamunists because you have shown no viable solutions so far.

Posted by: KDS on March 11, 2014 09:52 PM
43. At # 12,

"While I consider many conservatives to be reptilian, I don't consider conservatism as wholesale evil, only wrong about many things."

Conservatism is adherence to reality, versus liberalism--phony manipulative fantasy.
Most things associated with facts, truth or reality are anathema to you.

"People have been saying that "culture is very sick" for literally thousands of years, even when it obviously isn't [sic]. Just like you don't know economics, you obviously don't know sociology or history."

You minimize the sickness in our culture because you are sick. It excuses you to be less than decent, less than honest, and less than qualified to make reliable observations about anyone let alone my persona. You misuse buzz words like "racism" as an excuse to pretend to be virtuous and thus are the real true racist. The only way you can argue any subject is to use tactics in substitute for arguments and you have proven nothing except that you cannot win unless you cheat.

You conclude that "signs of people en-masse hungering for conservatism" are the result of people being screwed by the rich, or to experience savage social Darwinism at its worst, as hardcore conservatives profess.

Talk about a silly-ass straw man in spades!

You conclude this because you are an envious avaricious jack-ass who believes that you have the right to take other peoples property and distribute it as you see fit. You would rather have some slick punk racist half-wit like bongo redistribute people's property without limits than have a decent honest industrious master executive like Mitt Romney lead our country by making it possible for people to do for themselves.

You have NEVER shown that your argument has merit. You profess, you make broad statements, but insults are not "arguing" or "debating". You're a fraud that believes that everyone should think the way he does."

Because you make everything up to suit your idiotic leftist agenda, meritorious arguments are lost on you. I want freedom from the bullshit socialist crap you work to impose on me. You believe that everyone should think the way you do and that is why you support leftist fascist ideas. I pity the children you daily abuse with your scummy evil propaganda.

"Investing in something is a sign that you have sincere belief. I offered you a 100% rate of return on an investment you said was a sure thing and you turned it down. Proponents of free market economics would think that to be wrong."

I don't need or want your money. Stick it up your ass and pretend it's bongo.

It [in] other words... you're a chickenshit that doesn't even have the stones to back up what he believes. Gotcha.

You make no sense here and "got" [sic] less than nothing. If YOU had stones you would offer a respectable bet like $30,000. Anyone can play phony bravado on a blog idiot.

"If you think that politicians are the ones that have any possibility of solving our problems, you're a fool."

Being [in your own arrogant mind] smarter than our founding fathers and everyone else, (besides God) who might have any possibility of solving our problems?
You? Bongo? Union leaders?

Ecclesiastes 7:10 - Do not say, "Why were the old days better than these?" For it is not wise to ask such questions.

In other words, from nature and human experience there evolves nothing that is new, which leaves humans with the obligation to do what is right even though it appears to make no difference on earth.

Because it will produce some new utopia that never existed, liberals like you resolve that controlling people against their wills will make them do what is "right." However, the only way for humans to do what is right is if they are free to resolve to do it on their own.

You will continue to attempt to control people's outcomes through government and unions and I will work to overcome you. The difference between you and I is that you seek to control me where I want to free both of us to do the right thing. Given your stands on politics, economics, and culture you have no clue what doing the "right thing" might be.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 11, 2014 10:29 PM
44. @27: No one - especially - not me ever said such a thing, and since apparently you can read, you know it. You invented the "one point" part on your own -- silly ass. You can't win even a small point without cheating.

You're lying. You said @5:

Aren't you glad I didn't immediately take your chicken-shit bet? Eide's withdrawal kinda proved my point and changed things against your premise didn't it?

Eide's withdrawal deals with one event -- one data point of "proof". However, it's also poor evidence of a "conservative sea-change". As other have pointed out, it seems the Republicans have to run a Democrat in the district to win.

Falsely restating my arguments is not the same as refuting them, it only changes the argument.
I'm not falsely restating anything. You're simply backpedaling to avoid admitting you made bad arguments.

Pretending that my claims somehow conflated "volatility" with "trends is" -once again--the type of empty sliminess you are noted for.
"Sliminess"? Your example suggested things that would all make prices increase (not decline as I misstated previously), not things that would make prices more volatile. Volatility is caused, among other things, by a lack of information, not a surfeit of it.

However, you're demonstrated laziness and dishonesty is no surprise.
If anything, you're lazy and dishonest for not learning economics when claiming you did.

You claim to work 60 hours a week yet still teach me economics. That means you are using someone elses' time to fart around for your ego on the internet.
I bill my clients for the work I do for them. However, I need breaks too.

You are very slow to understand an argument...
Says the person that still cannot explain the difference between a bet and an investment.

...and never relent even when you are totally wrong...
I am not wrong here, and you haven't shown that.

...because you are used to getting your own way with people.
I think you're projecting.

I would pity you, but instead I am amused by the fact that you only prove that you simply cannot win at anything unless you cheat.
Given that you don't even show how I'm "cheating", your claim is pointless.

Posted by: demo kid on March 12, 2014 06:29 AM
45. @43. Conservatism is adherence to reality...
Not in the slightest. It is a different philosophy, not a "truth".

Most things associated with facts, truth or reality are anathema to you.
Given that you do not know facts, truth or reality about investment, economics, finance, and volatility, you can't speak to the topic.

"People have been saying that "culture is very sick" for literally thousands of years, even when it obviously isn't [sic].
No "sic" is required here.

You minimize the sickness in our culture because you are sick.
No, I minimize it because it is a statement made consistently throughout time, even about the periods that we believe now were "perfect".

It excuses you to be less than decent, less than honest, and less than qualified to make reliable observations about anyone let alone my persona.
I'm making reliable observations based on the statements you are making. And while I don't know you personally, your statements lead me to believe that you're dumber than a bag of hammers. I believe anyone else would rationally come to that conclusion.

You misuse buzz words like "racism" as an excuse to pretend to be virtuous and thus are the real true racist.
It does not follow that I am a racist simply if I call you one. But please feel free to call your black or Latino friends (or passers-by) "bongo" if you don't believe that to be racist.

The only way you can argue any subject is to use tactics in substitute for arguments and you have proven nothing except that you cannot win unless you cheat.
I am merely making rational statements based on what you write. There's no "cheating" involved.

You conclude that "signs of people en-masse hungering for conservatism" are the result of people being screwed by the rich, or to experience savage social Darwinism at its worst, as hardcore conservatives profess.
Because it's the absolute truth. What possible reason would people have to "hunger for conservatism", or at least the conservatism that you preach?

Talk about a silly-ass straw man in spades!
There's no straw man here.

You conclude this because you are an envious avaricious jack-ass...
I have not shown myself to be either envious or avaricious, and you haven't proven it.

who believes that you have the right to take other peoples property and distribute it as you see fit.
You're absolutely incorrect. *I* have no right to take other people's property and distribute it. However, a democratically-elected government does, and it is specifically enshrined in our Constitution.

You would rather have some slick punk racist half-wit like bongo redistribute people's property without limits...
There is zero evidence that the current Administration is redistributing property without limits.

...than have a decent honest industrious master executive like Mitt Romney lead our country by making it possible for people to do for themselves.
There is also zero evidence that Romney's policies would have allowed all people to redistribute property without limits themselves. At least, in a way that everyone would believe to be fair and equitable.

Because you make everything up to suit your idiotic leftist agenda, meritorious arguments are lost on you.
Try to make one and we'll see.

I want freedom from the bullshit socialist crap you work to impose on me.
And I want freedom from the conservative totalitarianism you work to impose on me. That's why we have a deliberative, democratically-elected constitutional government to represent our interests and come to some consensus.

You believe that everyone should think the way you do and that is why you support leftist fascist ideas.
Not in the slightest. But I don't like it when people (conservative or liberal) yammer on about their beliefs, and then see fit to not back them up with rational thought when pressed.

I don't need or want your money. Stick it up your ass and pretend it's bongo.
Not quite a believer in the free market, I see.

You make no sense here and "got" [sic] less than nothing. If YOU had stones you would offer a respectable bet like $30,000. Anyone can play phony bravado on a blog idiot.

I really don't really think you understand what "sic" means.

I offered you a reasonable bet that you could (probably) afford, one that would be relatively easy to administer but would be sizable enough to be taken seriously, and most importantly, one that the losing party wouldn't try really hard to back out of. I even volunteered that we donate it to charity instead. A "respectable" bet of $30,000 is meaningless, and just as impractical as betting $3 gajillion dollars.

Just admit that you don't have confidence in a "conservative sea-change".

Being [in your own arrogant mind] smarter than our founding fathers and everyone else, (besides God) who might have any possibility of solving our problems?
Aren't you claiming that liberals believe that government will solve all of their problems?

In other words, from nature and human experience there evolves nothing that is new, which leaves humans with the obligation to do what is right even though it appears to make no difference on earth.
Meaning, of course, that claiming that "modern society is sick" is something that people have said since the Old Testament days, even when it is foolish to lament for earlier times since nothing is new.

Because it will produce some new utopia that never existed, liberals like you resolve that controlling people against their wills will make them do what is "right."
Liberals don't believe in a utopia, and ANY government or organization will involve controlling people against their wills.

However, the only way for humans to do what is right is if they are free to resolve to do it on their own.
That statement makes no sense. People will only keep from murdering other people if they are free to resolve to do it on their own?

You will continue to attempt to control people's outcomes through government and unions and I will work to overcome you.
And you attempt to control people's outcomes through the organizations you support, and depending on the organization I will work to overcome you.

The difference between you and I is that you seek to control me where I want to free both of us to do the right thing.
No, I want you to be free to do what you want, as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights.

Given your stands on politics, economics, and culture you have no clue what doing the "right thing" might be.
And given that you cannot properly defend your "stands" [sic] on politics, economics, and culture, or even define them more than "liberals suck!", I don't think you know either.

Posted by: demo kid on March 12, 2014 07:15 AM
46. Amused, can you make me one promise?

Don't celebrate on election night. Elections are supposed to be a means to an ends, not an ends onto themselves.

True victory is if such election night victories lead to changes in public policy. In 1994 and 2010 they didn't and I don't see why it will in 2014. Even if we win the Senate. If that happens then you can celebrate but not until then.

It looks like bragging rights will go to Republicans this year. I have thought an alternative scenario (depressed conservative base) might mess up the conventional thinking on this, but regardless Republicans win, rah, rah rah. They have won before. If they do win this tear two years from how we will be back here and all likelihood bragging rights will go to the Democrats,

It's all a game for the politicians and for too many of us it has become a game too with election night victories being the end all instead of trying to stop Leftist policies. If you want to root for a team, choose the Seahawks, If you want to make changes in public policies we must find another way because what we have been doing the last forty years hasn't been working Even when "We Win". Especially when we win.

Election night victories are fleeting. So, don't celebrate on Election night. Wait and see the Republicans change their tune the next day.

Classic video here. Less than 24 hours after election night victory candidate says forget about everything I said during the campaign. You all know I was lying about that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7kFadfB_xY

Posted by: Brian on March 12, 2014 10:36 AM
47. Save your election night celebrating until you see REAL CHANGES in government.

Remember all the gloating you do this year might just be turned back on you in two years.

Or is this just a sport for you? If so, stick to the Seahawks.

Oh, and don't believe anything a candidate says while in "campaign mode".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7kFadfB_xY

Posted by: Brian on March 12, 2014 10:41 AM
48. You do know "we" won the Senate in 1994 don't you. Didn't do anything with it.

So, why should I care if "we" win the Senate. Been there done that.

Posted by: Brian on March 12, 2014 10:43 AM
49. No one here has defined "liberal" or "conservative," but we are all living in a state where the voters made gay marriage and recreational marijuane use legal via direct elections. Likewise, we've had four votes in forty-five years on reproductive rights, and all four were pro-choice. Those are political realities, and so long as we remain a democracy, elected officials will reflect that reality. "Marches for Life" on the Capitol campus in Olympia are not binding votes, and any attempt to repeal long-standing, popular laws *should* fail.

We tolerate as broad a range of views as a coherent society can, but not all views get represented by elected officials. Elections exist, in part, for that winnowing effect. Perhaps much of the complaints seen above are really problems with accepting democracy?

Posted by: tensor on March 12, 2014 11:01 AM
50. @49: We tolerate as broad a range of views as a coherent society can, but not all views get represented by elected officials. Elections exist, in part, for that winnowing effect. Perhaps much of the complaints seen above are really problems with accepting democracy?

Exactly.

This is what frustrates me when the looney fringe starts complaining about how nothing they want gets done, even if "they" are in power. Elected officials cannot afford to exclude all but the most extreme 10% of voters, no matter how much these extreme voters may hold their breath and stamp their feet. Compromise is necessary, even within your party, and it's not going to get you everything you want.

Posted by: demo kid on March 12, 2014 12:09 PM
51. A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting for what's for dinner,

Our founders feared that as much if not more than a Monarchy. As Dr, Franklin said to a lady after the constitutional convention when she asked so, what kind of government have you given us, he replied a REPUBLIC if you can keep it.

Guess we couldn't. Our Constitutional Republic has faded away.

Here's what another person said when asked about should we get rid of our Monarchy. He wasn't too fond of the Monarchy but feared what could replace it he asked:

Why would you trade 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants less than 1 mile away?

No wonder your party is called the "Democratic" party.

Posted by: Brian on March 12, 2014 03:49 PM
52. A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting for what's for dinner,

Our founders feared that as much if not more than a Monarchy. As Dr, Franklin said to a lady after the constitutional convention when she asked so, what kind of government have you given us, he replied a REPUBLIC if you can keep it.

Guess we couldn't. Our Constitutional Republic has faded away.

Here's what another person said when asked about should we get rid of our Monarchy. He wasn't too fond of the Monarchy but feared what could replace it he asked:

Why would you trade 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants less than 1 mile away?

No wonder your party is called the "Democratic" party.

Posted by: Brian on March 12, 2014 03:49 PM
53. "A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting for what's for dinner,"

Animals tend to vote with their feet. Ours is a free country; there are 49 other states which have to take you if you go. Why do you continue to reside in a state where almost thirty years have now passed since someone other than a Democrat was elected governor?

All you're going to get in power are brief flashes, like after 1994, and even then, the checks and balances you implicitly mentioned keep you from imposing your policy changes. Extremists like yourself are the reason Mr. Franklin and the others wrote our Constitution.

Or, to put it in the manner you did:

"Why would you trade 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants less than 1 mile away?"

You are the tyrant the rest of us fear.

Posted by: tensor on March 12, 2014 05:04 PM
54. At # 45,

I told you that "I don't need or want your money." and you replied "Not quite a believer in the free market, I see
According to you, "Investing in something is a sign that you have sincere belief." as if it might be the only way anyone (except you) might show sincere belief and if somehow others don't engage in your idiotic game they somehow lack sincere belief.

Put up or shut up. Since this is your stated position, provide terms.
So far your "investment opportunity" is a completely undefined wager backed up with nothing but lying bullshit.

You stated that "I offered you a 100% rate of return on [the] investment . . . ." So, you will pay all of the costs.
State specifics, who, what, where, when, how?

Since you profess to believe that an investment is the same as a bet and a sign of "sincere belief" why not offer $30,000 instead of $300, that the Republican Party will not both keep the House of Representatives, and take back the Senate this year? Or do you lack sincere belief this will happen?

Also, true sincere belief on your part would offer the same wager to any taker.

So are you NOT ONLY an amusingly dimwitted, lazy, dishonest, lying, racist, prick, but also a chickenshit jerk lacking in sincere belief in anything but your own arrogant superiority who cannot back up his bullshit?
Or will you simply (for the 100th time) pretend to answer but change the subject?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 12, 2014 06:02 PM
55. At # 45,

BTW since you believe sincerely in your "Investment opportunity," offer odds.
You "invest" $30,000 to others' $300.

Or are you chickenshit(rhetorical question)?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 12, 2014 06:30 PM
56. Amused -- you're not going to put even a very small sum of your money where your big, big mouth stays. We all get that. But please, continue crowing about how electing a tax-and-spend RINO into an open seat is a bellwether of the very "conservative sea change" you so pointedly refuse to bet upon.

Thanks in advance for the laughs.

Posted by: tensor on March 12, 2014 07:45 PM
57. @57 tensor on March 12, 2014 07:45 PM,

It's very clear from Confused by Everything up @55
"offer odds. You "invest" $30,000 to others' $300." that he evaluates the probability of a "conservative seat change" as a 100:1 proposition.

Of course that's given the caveat that "conservative" includes life long government employee, Democratic politician, Anti Capital Punishment, Pro Labor, Pro Taxes, Pro WEA, living minimum wage Republican candidates like Mark Miloscia.

Sounds about right.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 12, 2014 08:01 PM
58. CONSERVATIVE INVESTORS ALL!!!

Liberal democrat Demokid believes so sincerely in his certainty that no Republican Sea change will occur this year (Retain House of Representatives
and recover Majority of the Senate) that he will offer to put up $300 and give 10/1 odds.

He calls this bet an "investment" and offers it to prove that anyone who believes national political trends are moving to the right are completely wrong.

Of course the main problem here is that you will almost never get a liberal democrat like this scum-bag to pay off so it behooves anyone to carefully check out the terms of Demokid's offer.

Please note: If Demokid can't cheat, he won't play. Review his tactics here and on the last two Adam Faber threads. Demokid demonstrates that he is a liar and slimy racist leftist who cannot be trusted. For that reason along with the fact that I do not personally believe in betting, I won't take Demokid's investment/bet offer.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 12, 2014 08:17 PM
59. At #'s 56 & 57,

Thanks so much boys, girls, boy-girls, girl-boys, whatever, for your amusing observations and help.
I can always count on you.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 12, 2014 09:06 PM
60. I see that demonkid has been polishing his "debate like pudgie" skilz. How impressive (not).

Posted by: alphabet soup on March 12, 2014 09:09 PM
61. "Liberal democrat Demokid believes so sincerely in his certainty that no Republican Sea change will occur this year (Retain House of Representatives
and recover Majority of the Senate) that he will offer to put up $300 and give 10/1 odds."

Wrong. Status quo is opposite of "sea change." For someone so invested in convincing other, anonymous people on the Internet that he's clever, you're really quite dense.

No one cares if this proposed bet is ever paid for real; the point is, demokid got you to eat your own words so thoroughly, you flee in terror from the thought of supporting your worthless blatherings with even a small sum of money.

Again, thanks for the laughs.

Posted by: tensor on March 12, 2014 10:02 PM
62. At # 61,

Status quo is opposite of "sea change."

Pure genius; how do you do this?

You write, "No one cares if this proposed bet is ever paid for real; the point is, demokid got you to eat your own words so thoroughly, you flee in terror from the thought of supporting your worthless blatherings with even a small sum of money."

So, you will be happy to toss in and join with demokid and make arrangements to manage and guarantee his investment/bet?. That'll be a hoot.

Please . . . ease my terror. {:>)
Thanks for the help.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 12, 2014 10:35 PM
63. "Demokid demonstrates that he is a liar and slimy racist leftist who cannot be trusted."

Demo Kid is a racist? No kidding? What did he do, repeatedly call a black man a "nappy-headed, jive-talking bongo"? After all, there's dog-whistles, and then there's outright racist slurs. Like the ones you use in these threads.

You already know that blacks consider "nappy-headed" to be the "other "N" word" - a racist slur. That's why you use it, isn't it? To slur blacks?

You do that because you're both a racist and dumber than a stump.

I suggest you grab your thesaurus and show us again just how cringe-worthy desperate you are to come off as anything but the stupid, racist twit that you are and always will be.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 12, 2014 11:14 PM
64. At # 63,

Classic stupid leftist race pandering.

Racism is a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

The word "bongo" has no racial component to it WHATSOEVER.
By projecting race on the word, you pretend that race and hypersensitive misuse of the manipulative tool of "racism per-se" is a defense to anything, and PRESUME on your own that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority --or inferiority--of a particular race."

You are definitively a racist.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 13, 2014 12:58 AM
65. "By projecting race on the word..."

Horseshit. Racism is a piece of shit such as yourself repeatedly calling a black man a "nappy-headed, jive-talking bongo" in these threads.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 13, 2014 02:00 AM
66. Way cool! Some extremely valid points! I appreciate
you penning this post and also the rest of the website
is very good.

Posted by: Air max pas cher femme on March 13, 2014 02:19 AM
67. @54: According to you, "Investing in something is a sign that you have sincere belief." as if it might be the only way anyone (except you) might show sincere belief and if somehow others don't engage in your idiotic game they somehow lack sincere belief.
You can feel free to not participate in my "idiotic game" for any number of good reasons. However, if you do have "sincere belief" that there will be a conservative "sea-change", a bet like this should be free money.

Put up or shut up. Since this is your stated position, provide terms.
I have provided terms repeatedly. You've backpedaled from them.

So far your "investment opportunity" is a completely undefined wager backed up with nothing but lying bullshit.
No, the wager has been completely defined. You've simply backpedaled away when someone has asked for proof of your belief.

You stated that "I offered you a 100% rate of return on [the] investment . . . ." So, you will pay all of the costs.
On a $300 wager, the costs would be negligible. But yes, if you want to be a stickler, you or I would probably make about 95% return on investment in reality. That's still better than the stock market.

State specifics, who, what, where, when, how?
I've repeatedly told you the "who", "what", "where", and "when". The "how" would mean that we would need to agree on terms. I'll be quite flexible to accommodate your needs, but I'd want assurances that you would pay up.

Since you profess to believe that an investment is the same as a bet and a sign of "sincere belief" why not offer $30,000 instead of $300, that the Republican Party will not both keep the House of Representatives, and take back the Senate this year? Or do you lack sincere belief this will happen?
That's not what I proposed as a bet.

Also, true sincere belief on your part would offer the same wager to any taker.
I'm not a bookie, nor do I feel like shifting my investments over to political futures. However, if you don't take it and someone else is willing to bet on "conservative sea-change", I'd consider it.

So are you NOT ONLY an amusingly dimwitted, lazy, dishonest, lying, racist, prick, but also a chickenshit jerk lacking in sincere belief in anything but your own arrogant superiority who cannot back up his bullshit?
I think that you must be projecting here.

Or will you simply (for the 100th time) pretend to answer but change the subject?
Yep... projecting.

Posted by: demo kid on March 13, 2014 05:35 AM
68. 58. Liberal democrat Demokid...
More lying. As I've said repeatedly, I'm not a democrat.

...believes so sincerely in his certainty that no Republican Sea change will occur this year (Retain House of Representatives and recover Majority of the Senate)...
That wasn't the bet I had defined, although I would be *extremely* surprised if the Washington House would pass into Republican control.

...that he will offer to put up $300 and give 10/1 odds.
I'm not a bookie. Likewise, count "odds" as a term that you do not understand, since that would mean that you would need to only put up $30, which isn't the bet I proposed.

He calls this bet an "investment" and offers it to prove that anyone who believes national political trends are moving to the right are completely wrong.
The bet I offered to you was about "conservative sea-change", since the evidence doesn't support that national political trends are "moving to the right" as hard as you suggest. If I could get a number of people that believed the same thing to bet (or rather, "take out political futures contracts"), I could probably make a lot of money very quickly, more than I could on the stock market.

Of course the main problem here is that you will almost never get a liberal democrat like this scum-bag to pay off so it behooves anyone to carefully check out the terms of Demokid's offer.
You continue to lie and misrepresent yourself and me. I have been open to terms that would ensure that the winner would get paid. You simply backpedal, and expect that people won't see that you're a coward. (And you apparently don't understand what "escrow" is.)

Please note: If Demokid can't cheat, he won't play.
I am very willing to place a bet on mutually agreeable terms, and provide assurances that "cheating" wouldn't happen on *either* side. (Given how you're squirming, you are the bigger risk here.)

Review his tactics here and on the last two Adam Faber threads. Demokid demonstrates that he is a liar and slimy racist leftist who cannot be trusted.
Calling you out for stupid and irrational statements doesn't mean that I'm a "liar" and a "slimy racist lefist". It also makes you look worse when you try to weasel out of the things that you say.

For that reason along with the fact that I do not personally believe in betting, I won't take Demokid's investment/bet offer.

Excuses, excuses. I offered to donate the outcome to charity, and you refused too. You simply do not have the courage to live up to the stupid things you say, nor to face someone down when they challenge your beliefs in things that are "quite likely".

If anything, you've been a massive source of amusement. When a rare opportunity presents itself to provide proof of your belief, you fold. At the end of this all, it just shows that you blabber on but that you're not really confident in what you say. Your words are meaningless.

But you're definitely not worth any of my further time, or anyone else's. Thanks for contributing.

Posted by: demo kid on March 13, 2014 06:07 AM
69. "As I've said repeatedly, I'm not a democrat."

Waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Posted by: alphabet soup on March 13, 2014 07:06 AM
70. @69: Waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Not unless the duck managed to put a party membership or campaign contribution on his bill...

Posted by: demo kid on March 13, 2014 08:29 AM
71. @64 You never answered previous questions as to what you mean by "bongo." By your use, one can assume that you are not calling the President a drum or a type of antelope, then your use of the term is meant to be derogatory. One can further assume that the use of the term "bongo" is in reference to the monkey named "bongo." So, ergo, you are calling the President a monkey, which he being black is a well established racist term for persons of African-American descent. Therefore, your are either (a) totally ignorant of what constitutes racist terms, or (b) you are a racist (as it pertain to the President and his race). So, which is it?

Posted by: tc on March 13, 2014 11:34 AM
72. At # 68,

You drone on feebly, I am very willing to place a bet on mutually agreeable terms, and provide assurances that "cheating" wouldn't happen on *either* side.

No, you are only willing to restate the same cowardly insincere crap over and again.

Put up or shut up. You offered to bet, provide the terms or run away . . . chickenshit.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 13, 2014 12:04 PM
73. I thought of one other option: (c) you are English and use the term in reference to Bongo-Bongo Land, which is still racist and has been banned in Parliment. It doesn't refer to Bongo the monkey. Instead it was a term used in UK (and colonies) to refer to Africans in a derogatory manner. As I stated, It was found as racist term in the UK and would be here too, although not common in its usage here, since US didn't have African colonies.

Posted by: tc on March 13, 2014 12:08 PM
74. "By your use, one can assume that you are not calling the President a drum or a type of antelope, then your use of the term is meant to be derogatory."

I'd say that calling anybody names behind their back that they likely wouldn't appreciate to be of derogatory intent. And consider that, of all the antelope in the world and of all the world's percussion instruments, he'd be calling a black man either an Afro-Cuban drum or an African antelope. That Amused also uses "nappy-headed" and "jive-talking" to slur the black man completes the picture and it isn't very pretty.

I say that anyway it's spun, it's race-based, derogatory slurring of a black man. That's the stuff of racism.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 13, 2014 12:17 PM
75. At # 71,

Demonstrated and deliberate leftist racism.

"You never answered previous questions as to what you mean by "bongo." By your use, one can assume that you are not calling the President a drum or a type of antelope, then your use of the term is meant to be derogatory. One can further assume that the use of the term "bongo" is in reference to the monkey named "bongo." So, ergo, you are calling the President a monkey, which he being black is a well established racist term for persons of African-American descent. Therefore, your are either (a) totally ignorant of what constitutes racist terms, or (b) you are a racist (as it pertain to the President and his race).

False choice.

There are many other alternatives here but being either (a) totally ignorant of those alternatives or (b) having deliberately chosen only those alternatives that frame a racially centered context, you are either (a) totally ignorant of what constitutes racist terms, or (b) you are a racist or (c) both.

I choose (c) both.
Thanks for the lesson in vicious dim-witted racist liberal "thought" patterns (emotional tactics).

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 13, 2014 12:17 PM
76. @72: No, you are only willing to restate the same cowardly insincere crap over and again. Put up or shut up. You offered to bet, provide the terms or run away . . . chickenshit.

Project much? I am neither cowardly nor insincere. I have also repeatedly provided you with the terms, and you've rejected them because you "personally don't believe in betting". Therefore, you've lost every ounce of your credibility here. You are inconsistent, hypocritical, and lacking a basic understanding of economics, finance, language, and even the Bible. (And, of course, reality.)

You're a bore, Robert. But the worst part? You have no fucking balls.

Posted by: demo kid on March 13, 2014 12:57 PM
77. Amused, "Put up or shut up. You offered to bet, provide the terms..."

Demo Kid "I have also repeatedly provided you with the terms, and you've rejected them..."

You're obviously willing to bet $300 and you lay out the terms quite clearly, and several times, in fact.

"You have no fucking balls."

That seems to be the problem, alright. True with his racist BS as well. A second-rate dog-whistler. No balls.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 13, 2014 02:55 PM
78. "There are many other alternatives here..."

Ok, genius, WTF did you intend by repeatedly referring to our twice-elected President, Mr. Barack H. Obama, as "bongo"? If you had an intention other than convincing your readers that you are a racist, you have obviously failed.

Writing tip: if you get into an argument with your readers over the meanings of the words you chose, then you probably didn't choose your words well in the first place.

Posted by: tensor on March 13, 2014 03:22 PM
79. Tensed-up @78 - I'll bet that Amused is pleased that you acknowledge his genius LOL

Posted by: alphabet soup on March 13, 2014 05:34 PM
80. At # 76,

Who has no balls!!!
You are unbelievably dishonest enough to evade the point time and again.

READ THIS V E R Y S L O W L Y SO YOU CAN GET IT.

YOU professed to be "willing to place a bet on mutually agreeable terms, and provide assurances that "cheating" wouldn't happen."

I asked you to provide those very terms and your proposed method of providing assurances, yet now you backpedal and refuse calling me a coward. Talk about projection.

It is very amusing that are arrogant enough to assume that anyone should just simply ignore your record at SP, and TRUST YOU? And my refusing to bet you money -- based on trust of you alone -- somehow means I'm a coward?

If you were honest you would reply consistently and provide what I asked for, if you were fearless of looking like the very coward you are, you would step up and offer terms, and if you sincerely believed in your position, you would offer odds.

That's not me . . . that's you!!!

And finally . . . the chuckle of the whole running review of your pathetic silliness.
You write that I have no "credibility" here? So my "standing" with democrats like you is now ruined?
Gosh golly whizaroo what will I ever do??? Besides being a dishonest cowardly and insincere blowhard megalomaniac, you are also a petty simpering ding-bat.

So I repeat.
Provide the specific detailed terms of your investment opportunity or shut the fuck up and go do something honest for a change.

Very amusing indeed.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 13, 2014 05:49 PM
81. At # 78,

I have three alternatives for you that will help.

1) The word bongo is partly a lure to find out who will jump to a reflexive accusation based on race.

In other words to see if you will jump around like a nitwit screaming racist-racist terrible- terrible, bad-bad like you and other moron liberals have done on this and other threads.
Works good doesn't it?

You write that "If you had an intention other than convincing your readers that you are a racist, you have obviously failed."

2). Pay close attention to this. You are a self-righteous dipshit. I couldn't possibly care less what you think of me.

"Writing tip: if you get into an argument with your readers over the meanings of the words you chose, then you probably didn't choose your words well in the first place."

3) As for your tip, I choose my words very well indeed or I would not be as amused by watching you and other liberals here crap themselves in their attempts to label me a racist.

The simple truth is that any and all of those at SP who adopted a racially centered interpretation of my words are by definition - racists. Worse than that . . . in order to smear me with his racism, rootie gazootie "the proud public nose pickin's eater," made up things I never wrote. But that's just him - he doesn't know any better. I am not a racist and I don't care in the least whether or not you (or anyone else) believe it.

BTW, you may have noticed that because you are a waste of time I don't reply much to you any longer.

That you fail to get all of this, (and probably never will) is why I am amused by liberals like you.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 13, 2014 06:30 PM
82. "The word bongo is partly a lure to find out who will jump to a reflexive accusation based on race."

LMFAO! Yeah, and I suppose repeatedly calling the black man "nappy-headed" was another one of your lures. Oh, and "jive-talking". "Nappy-headed, jive-talking bongo". All this, through all these threads, with veins popping in anger at the "nappy-headed, jive-talking bongo", it was all just a lure. LMFAO!

"Works good doesn't it?"

You're just too funny!! You tried so hard, it's almost a shame but you failed again. You're just another resentful racist loser. Obviously.

Posted by: r. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 13, 2014 06:52 PM
83. @80: Who has no balls!!!
You, obviously. I'm wondering about the brain, too.

You are unbelievably dishonest enough to evade the point time and again.
You're a proven liar. You have not EVER proved that I've been dishonest ONCE. Further, I'm not evading the point -- I'm demonstrating that even conservatives don't believe that a Democrat running as a Republican counts as a "conservative sea-change", which is directly related to the topic of this post.

YOU professed to be "willing to place a bet on mutually agreeable terms, and provide assurances that "cheating" wouldn't happen."
Yes.

I asked you to provide those very terms and your proposed method of providing assurances, yet now you backpedal and refuse calling me a coward. Talk about projection.
You're a coward because you make excuses and expect that people will believe you. It's not hard to figure out some mutually agreeable way to place a bet, and I outlined it previously. I would even be open to your input, or anyone else's, as to how to do it, and I said that we could donate it to charity.

It is very amusing that are arrogant enough to assume that anyone should just simply ignore your record at SP, and TRUST YOU? And my refusing to bet you money -- based on trust of you alone -- somehow means I'm a coward?
What "record"? And your excuses for refusing to bet money are absurd. You're covering for the complete lack of a spine.

If you were honest you would reply consistently and provide what I asked for, if you were fearless of looking like the very coward you are, you would step up and offer terms, and if you sincerely believed in your position, you would offer odds.
If you weren't lazy, you would read back and see that I've already provided everything you needed to take a bet. If you weren't stupid, you'd realize that included terms. And if you weren't completely uneducated about probability (in addition to economics, finance, grammar, etc.), you would realize that I'm not offering odds since a.) I'm not your bookie, b.) I'm not taking multiple bets, and c.) I'm paying in the same amount as you.

That's not me . . . that's you!!!
What's not you?

And finally . . . the chuckle of the whole running review of your pathetic silliness.
I don't think you understand that you're the butt of the joke you're laughing at.

You write that I have no "credibility" here? So my "standing" with democrats like you is now ruined? Gosh golly whizaroo what will I ever do??? Besides being a dishonest cowardly and insincere blowhard megalomaniac, you are also a petty simpering ding-bat.
No, your credibility is ruined with anyone that reads this.

So I repeat. Provide the specific detailed terms of your investment opportunity or shut the fuck up and go do something honest for a change.
And I repeat -- stop being lazy and read what I wrote. You already look like a buffoon, and you're just embarrassing yourself further. If you're too much of a wuss to consider a bet, why should I waste my time trying to describe the mechanics to you? There is zero incentive.

Posted by: demo kid on March 13, 2014 07:41 PM
84. @82: You're just too funny!! You tried so hard, it's almost a shame but you failed again. You're just another resentful racist loser. Obviously.

Amused is a horrid case of anosognosia. From the link:

If Wheeler was too stupid to be a bank robber, perhaps he was also too stupid to know that he was too stupid to be a bank robber -- that is, his stupidity protected him from an awareness of his own stupidity.

It's a fascinating read, if you haven't taken a look before.

Posted by: demo kid on March 13, 2014 07:47 PM
85. At # 83,

O.K., I need more information to proceed.

YOU (in your persona as Demokid) offered this investment to me and not otherwise and professed to be willing to do it on what you called "mutually agreeable terms." You also declared that you would "provide assurances that cheating wouldn't happen," and then claimed that you had supposedly outlined the terms.

However, in order to proceed, (and as I requested more than once) rather than an outline, I need specifics. So that I can choose whether or not they are as you write"mutually agreeable terms," please kindly provide me with specific terms including the exact nature of this investment, how the money would be handled, where, and specifically how you would make assurances to me that cheating would not be possible. For example where would the escrow be and how does it work?

Being the honest, courageous, pillar of trust and respectability you claim to be, this is not too much to ask . . . is it? Also as an expert at finance and economics, you know all about how to do this investment right?

I anxiously await these details so we can proceed.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 13, 2014 09:50 PM
86. At # 82,

Your laughs and rollicking racist hi jinx is especially interesting coming from someone who proudly and publicly consumes his own detritus. That someone of your character considers me a racist especially on the bases you use, is a badge of honor.

You bit on that.
So what if I am black, what then?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 13, 2014 10:07 PM
87. @85: Being the honest, courageous, pillar of trust and respectability you claim to be, this is not too much to ask . . . is it? Also as an expert at finance and economics, you know all about how to do this investment right?

So now, after being roundly humiliated and refusing twice to take this bet, you've changed your mind?

I can, of course, research some finer points down if you are interested. An acceptable and anonymous solution that doesn't involve a lot of moving parts or mutual trust can be difficult. I don't know your level of experience with Internet transactions. But hey, even if it is a matter of mailing a money order to an acceptable third-party, I'm fine with that. The technology is a minor obstacle.

Likewise, the bet should just based on who gets closest to an objective figure, with whomever gets closest winning the entire pot. You can choose whether you predict the number of Republican state senators, state representatives, members of the legislature, whatever. The only catch is that I have to pick fewer Republicans than you -- the point is that you believe a sea-change is happening, and I do not. If I pick more Republicans than you do, then : a.) I actually believe that a conservative wave will happen, or b.) you do not and you're just blabbering on.

And hey, I am more than open to changing anything to make you feel more comfortable.

But why the change of heart? Why should I take you seriously when you've said before that you don't bet? Were you just lying, or are you being dishonest now? Did you finally grow a pair?

Posted by: demo kid on March 13, 2014 10:58 PM
88. "detritus"

LMFAO! You try so hard not to come off as the dumbass half-twit you are. Another laughable fail.

"You bit on that."

No, I called you on your racist BS and all you've done is call me silly names.

"So what if I am black, what then?"

LMFAO! Yeah, right. Self-loath much? Too funny! You write like you no doubt walk, Amused, as though you have a stick up your ass. No, you're white and a racist. Obviously.

You're a damned racist, Amused. Too bad you don't have the balls to admit it. But that's the usual problem afflicting racists - no balls.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 14, 2014 08:27 AM
89. "anosognosia"

Spot on, Demo Kid. Too stupid to know that he's stupid. That's our Amused, alright.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 14, 2014 08:30 AM
90. At # 87,

Anyone who would seriously profess competence at investing as you do, would also obtain specifics and particulars before agreeing to invest in anything.

You write, "why the change of heart? Why should I take you seriously when you've said before that you don't bet? Were you just lying, or are you being dishonest now? Did you finally grow a pair?"

You made me a sweeping offer, then you attempted to cast me as a coward when I balked at it, and once again (behind many other attempts) I am asking you to provide me with the details of your offer so that I can decide if I agree or not. Not vague assurances and nebulous nonsense . . . specific details.

It's that simple.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 14, 2014 03:47 PM
91. "You're a damned racist, Amused. Too bad you don't have the balls to admit it. But that's the usual problem afflicting racists - no balls."

Another case of Liberal Projection

Posted by: alphabet soup on March 14, 2014 04:10 PM
92. "... The word bongo is partly a lure..."

What else is it? Perhaps a racist term used by racist conservatives?

"...a reflexive accusation based on race."

No, it's an informed response to the use of a racist term; the response has nothing to do with "race" itself. But hey, please continue to entertain us by demonstrating the difference between the writer you are, and the writer you'd like everyone else to believe you are.

"...I choose my words very well indeed..."

Writing tip: getting into irrelevant side arguments with readers tends to show words were not well-chosen.

"You are a self-righteous dipshit."

And to think, some liberals believe the term, "conservative intellectual," to be an oxymoron.

Posted by: tensor on March 14, 2014 05:02 PM
93. "And to think, some liberals believe the term, "conservative intellectual," to be an oxymoron."

Whereas you'll be hard-pressed to find a conservative who has yet to discover that "liberal intellectual" is precisely an oxymoron.

Posted by: alphabet soup on March 14, 2014 05:19 PM
94. "Another case of Liberal Projection"

Next you'll tell me it's a Psych 101 thing. After that, it's the proper application of voltage. In other words, not only is it effective, you don't have the imagination to come up with your own material so you steal mine. I'm flattered. Too bad it doesn't work for you.

"conservative intellectual"

I haven't used that in decades. Maybe with Bill Buckley way back in the day of Firing Line. These days? Eh, what have they got. The screeching $now Snookie? I don't think so.

Rep. Paul Ryan sez, "inner city"

Lame as he is, at least Ryan knows when to walk back on the dog whistling. And to his credit, at least he didn't choose go with "nappy-headed, jive-talking bongo". As Amused is learning, that one would have been impossible to walk back.

"You bit on that."

Too funny. And seriously lame. Amused started with "bongo", but no one took the bait. Again and again he used it and nobody said anything. Then he added "jive-talking" and still nothing. Then the racist fool gave us "nappy-headed", what blacks call the other "N" word.

The guy who doesn't bet thought he was upping the ante. Wrong. He was laying out rope. Now he's swinging from it, slowing turning in the wind as we give that damned racist SOB what he has coming to him.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 14, 2014 05:33 PM
95. "liberal intellectual"

Stealing material again. Too funny! Loser.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 14, 2014 05:37 PM
96. At # 92,

"The word bongo is partly a lure..."
What else is it? Perhaps a racist term used by racist conservatives?

Perhaps . . . but not in this instance.
Here it serves as a simple way to prove that you are a racist and you bit just like your buddy rootie gazootie. Your concerted efforts to demonize others rather than arguing for a position or set of ideals is what nappy headed liberal morons like you are famous for. ;>)

You are too easy.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 14, 2014 06:48 PM
97. "Perhaps . . . but not in this instance."

Then answer the question. Other than a "lure" to get decent readers to object to your intentional and repeated use of gutter language, why did you use it?

"Here it serves as a simple way to prove that you are a racist..."

Objecting to the repeated and intentional use of a racist term is the opposite of racism, not consonant with racism. That's a huge logic fail, even by your standards.

But hey, keep using gutter language; it displays your conservative character nicely, and in no way distracts anyone from your total failure to support any of your claims. You can bet on that! :-D

Posted by: tensor on March 14, 2014 07:12 PM
98. At #92,

Soup, pay no attention to rootie gazootie the nose pickin's eater (Dr. Zatoichi), he writes jive-ass crap all the time.
Calls me a racist for it too.
I take it as a compliment.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 14, 2014 07:15 PM
99. At # 97,

You are a nappy headed moron, I couldn't possibly care less what you feeel about me.
Enjoy believing whatever you like and keep telling us all about it.
Its amusing.

Thanks for your comments.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 14, 2014 07:20 PM
100. "You are a nappy headed moron,"

As usual, your language is as classy as it is accurate.

"... I couldn't possibly care less what you feeel about me."

Ok, genius, please quote me on the subject of how I "feeel" about you. I'll even save you the trouble of crawling around in the gutter you've made of this thread; the only examples are right here:

How do I feel about your displays of gutter bigotry, how do I feel about your inability to comprehend why decent readers object to your repeated displays of gutter bigotry, and how do I feel about how you proudly disassociate yourself from us liberals and our liberalism throughout your intentional and repeated displays of gutter bigotry?

I feel very sorry for you, but I also feel fine about the free service you're providing for liberalism and us liberals.

And, as always, thanks for the laughs!

Posted by: tensor on March 14, 2014 08:14 PM
101. "I feel very sorry for you"

Not me. The guy is a racist twit and dumber than a stump. How stupid is he? Well, I've been to two hog callings and a county fair and I can still swear that I've never encountered anything so damned stupid as this foul-mouthed SOB. He gets what's coming to him.

I've noticed that he gets especially whack and angry on Friday and Saturday nights. Mixing booze with the meds, I'd say. Yeah, that's about his speed.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 14, 2014 09:10 PM
102. At # 100,

"rib@)&^%%- fram$%^ durn%_)@$ and flip*flap *@$^ crud-split$(&^%whittle-dunger"

Got it.
Thanks
Lets hear more.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 14, 2014 10:24 PM
103. At # 101,

Perhaps if you whang away mindlessly at a guitar for a little while like the wicked nappy-headed tootsooyah moron you are, you will feeel better.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 14, 2014 11:04 PM
104. "nappy-headed" "nappy-headed" "nappy-headed" "nappy-headed" "nappy-headed" "nappy-headed" "nappy-headed" "nappy-headed" "nappy-headed" "nappy-headed" "nappy-headed" "nappy-headed" "nappy-headed" "nappy-headed" "nappy-headed" "nappy-headed" "nappy-headed" "nappy-headed"

What the hell is going on here, Adam? Do you condone the racist slurs that litter your comment threads? If you don't, why do you do nothing about it? It's on you, Adam Faber.

Posted by: Seth on March 15, 2014 09:18 AM
105. @90 et al.: Since you saw fit to move our conversation where you thought more people would see you, I've replied there.

@104: Do you condone the racist slurs that litter your comment threads?

I appreciate that he doesn't censor his comment section. Unless it gets more severe that one stupid guy using one racist term, I don't think it needs to be weeded out.

Posted by: demo kid on March 15, 2014 11:16 AM
106. "Lame as he is, at least Ryan knows when to walk back on the dog whistling."

Just because the black caucus say it is dog whistling does not make it so - there they displayed their racism toward caucasians. However, the Republicans are so lame because they don't call those tactics to anyone's attention, so the black caucus got away with it again.

As correct as what he said was, Ryan is mediocre at fighting on principal. He should have rose to the challenge and defended his comments instead of walk them back. He looked bad when debated Biden in 2012, when he failed to call Joe on his bullshit - he is a smart guy, but weak as a politician. He has caved to illegal amnesty like the lawless libs would cherish. Hopefully, he will not waste his time or talent running for President and stay where he is in the House.

Posted by: KDS on March 15, 2014 02:44 PM
107. "He has caved to illegal amnesty like the lawless libs would cherish."

I'm sure you'll recall, Stupe Too, how another lawless lib, President Ronald Reagan, granted amnesty to 3,000,000 illegal immigrants in 1986. Cherish that, bitch.

You really are stupe. Sadly, you're just too stupe to know it.

"However, the Republicans are so lame"

If you're saying Rep. Paul Ryan is lame, I would agree, but for different reasons.

Or maybe you think Republicans like Ryan should stop playing games with dog whistles and code-words, freely use the "N" word and let it all hang out. I know Amused is just itchin' to unleash his inner racist. How about you?

How about you, Adam? Are you going to play to your base with your next post by referring to the president as the "nappy-headed, jive-talking bongo"? Just read the comments on your blog. It go over great with this crowd.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 15, 2014 03:29 PM
108. At # 104,

Mindless.
Have you ever had a thought of your own that wasn't implanted into your pea-sized little brain by others?
Ever heard of Pavlov's dogs?
Just curious.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 15, 2014 06:53 PM
109. At # 107,

"maybe you think Republicans like Ryan should stop playing games with dog whistles and code-words, freely use the "N" word and let it all hang out."

Do you know what a "dog-whistle" is?

Who decides which words are racist . . . you? The Congressional black caucus?
And should it be illegal to use these words?

Should Adam Faber ban me for calling you nappy headed?

Thanks for your comments.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 15, 2014 07:05 PM
110. "Who decides which words are racist . . . you?"

You repeatedly and gleefully slurring a black man as "nappy-headed, what blacks consider to be the other "N" word when used by shits like you as a slur, is racist.

"Should Adam Faber ban me for calling you nappy headed?"

Whether or not Adam tolerates racist slurs in his threads is up to him, just as your usage of racist slurs has been up to you and condemnation of what you're doing here is up to those who read your words.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 16, 2014 08:45 AM
111. MY Q: ""Who decides which words are racist . . . you?"

YOUR ANS: "You repeatedly and gleefully slurring a black man as "nappy-headed, what blacks consider to be the other "N" word when used by shits like you as a slur, is racist.

This is just bullshit lodged in your peanut sized brain and you are too blinded by liberal nonsense to recognize it.

"and condemnation of what you're doing here is up to those who read your words . . . "

This is a blog moron.
Try to "think" (even for a fleeting moment) what that really means.
For what possible reason should I care about your feeelings about words or your reflexive racism?
You never ever show respect for anything . . . even your own family and you proudly display it on utube over and again.

You have no idea what race I am.
Why should I care in the lest about what you or "blacks" or anyone else thinks or feels about my comments?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 16, 2014 09:32 AM
112. "This is a blog moron."

Right. A blog. Where you try to use words like "detritus" in a failed attempt to come off as anything but a moronic stupe.

As I wrote before, any readers of these comments will make up their own minds whether or not your repeatedly calling a black man a "nappy-headed, jive-talking bongo" is racist or not.

I don't want you banned, Stupe. I don't even want you to shut up. If anything, I'm waiting for you to finally grow a pair and use the "N" word. After all, you represent the right and nobody here on the right says anything to condemn you. Except for Stupe Too, who obviously agrees with you that it's okay to call a black man a "nappy-headed. jive-talking bongo".

Go for it, Stupe. Works for me.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 16, 2014 11:11 AM
113. @111: This is just bullshit lodged in your peanut sized brain and you are too blinded by liberal nonsense to recognize it.

So, do you believe that it is acceptable for conservatives to call a black passer-by the n-word? Or "bongo"?

Please give a straight answer. No more of your bullshit.

Posted by: demo kid on March 16, 2014 02:07 PM
114. At # 112,

In spite of yourself by happenstance, you are correct about one thing. People will come here and make up their minds and many of them are slimy racist liberal democrat dimwits like you who lie in nearly every sentence they utter.

Just in case you were too busy videotaping yourself while jacking off in your spaghetti at the time and missed it, you have no idea what race I am and assume that I'm white.
But being black don't you believe that matters?

You are so filled with hatred and "liberal" stupidity that you cannot see your own blatant demonstrated racism. Most black people have contempt for the phony racial equalization and racist-projection you perpetrate and display because it is patronizing and racist in itself but you are too self-righteously steeped in liberal dim-witlessness to get it.

Either way, please tell me why should I care in the least about what you or other "blacks" or anyone else thinks or feels about my comments?

You write "I'm waiting for you to finally grow a pair and use the "N" word."
Which word are you referring to genius; spell it out for me.

Otherwise go back to flanging away at your guitar making car-wreck noises and pretending they are music. ;>)
Very amusing.
Thanks kindly for your comments.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 16, 2014 02:18 PM
115. @114: Most black people have contempt for the phony racial equalization and racist-projection you perpetrate and display because it is patronizing and racist in itself but you are too self-righteously steeped in liberal dim-witlessness to get it.

Then "most black people" wouldn't mind if you called them "bongo"? It's a simple question that you cannot seem to answer.

Either way, please tell me why should I care in the least about what you or other "blacks" or anyone else thinks or feels about my comments?

Because it's clear that you're a hypocrite, and it's yet another reason why you have little (if any) credibility talking about... well... much of anything, really.

Posted by: demo kid on March 16, 2014 02:35 PM
116. "Most black people..."

It'd be my guess that most black people don't like being called a "nappy-headed, jive-talking bongo" by a racist such as yourself, Stupe, especially seeing as how you followed that up with, "why should I care in the least about what you or other "blacks" or anyone else thinks or feels about my comments?"

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 16, 2014 03:01 PM
117. At # 115,

All simplistic baseless bigoted nonsense from a liberal democrat coward.

Conservative black people don't care about such so-called racial slurs. They are treated by liberals in the most racists ways possible regardless of words. Many blacks, especially black liberals use racial slurs with each other routinely. You would know that if you knew much of anything at all.

So what next . . . are you going to do offer me an "investment" of $7.39 betting they don't?

And . . . Credibility . . . here . . . LOL!!!
You mean attempting to have a rational discussion about anything with a liberal democrat like you . . . ?
Right that makes sense.

Thanks so much

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 16, 2014 03:12 PM
118. At # 117,

"It'd be my guess that most black people don't like being called a "nappy-headed, jive-talking bongo"

Of course that would be your guess, but it hardly matters because you are a lying racist bigot idiot.

Unlike liberals, Conservatives of all races are smart enough to recognize that making false accusations of racism against someone is actually worse (more racist) than the accusation. I never called anyone what you accuse me of and you know it. Some that come here may believe it as well because they believe your lies. For example, demokid admits that because he is dishonest enough to believe your lies on this account, I have no credibility.
What a joke.

Still the truth never slows your efforts to smear my blog-persona with racism by using your racism. You do this because you have nothing else.

Your idiot garbage about me murdering girl scouts was the same . . . lies and hype repeated over and again until it sticks in the minds of witless liberals like yourself.
And being the idiot you are, you actually begin to believe your own lies. And around it goes.

That's why nothing really matters here so long as this blog remains unmonitored. It leaves the blog open to be over-run by you insane liberals scurrying around like rats.

Thanks for the demonstration of the liberal democrat technique of character assassination through lies and cynical racism.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 16, 2014 03:39 PM
119. @117: All simplistic baseless bigoted nonsense from a liberal democrat coward. Conservative black people don't care about such so-called racial slurs.

Then "most black people" wouldn't mind if you called them "bongo"? It's a simple question that you cannot seem to answer.

Posted by: demo kid on March 16, 2014 03:51 PM
120. "Conservative black people don't care about such so-called racial slurs."

Conservative blacks? Well, since there's only three of them, I reckon polling them on whether or not they mind being called "nappy-headed, jive-talking bongos" by an angry racist like you ought to be easy enough to pull off.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 16, 2014 03:52 PM
121. @118: I never called anyone what you accuse me of and you know it. Some that come here may believe it as well because they believe your lies. For example, demokid admits that because he is dishonest enough to believe your lies on this account, I have no credibility.

Dr. Z and I don't "know it" -- we don't know you in real life, and there's no way that we can tell whether you're a racist, except from your statements here.

Likewise, no one is lying when they point out that you've used the term "bongo", and it's pretty damned racist. I'm also not being dishonest when I say you probably wouldn't use the term with your black friends. Would you disagree with this?

You're a small-minded fraud and an embarrassment, and that is why you have no credibility in any discussion.

Posted by: demo kid on March 16, 2014 03:58 PM
122. "character assassination through lies and cynical racism"

So whines the racist stupe who slurs blacks in these comments as "nappy-headed, jive-talking bongos".

"your efforts to smear my blog-persona with racism"

Sorry, but you smear yourself with the stink of racism every time you call a black man a "nappy-headed, jive-talking bongo", something you've done gleefully, repeatedly and with no remorse whatsoever.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 16, 2014 04:06 PM
123. At # 122,

"Sorry, but you smear yourself with the stink of racism every time you call a black man a "nappy-headed, jive-talking bongo", something you've done gleefully, repeatedly and with no remorse whatsoever.

Prove it.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 16, 2014 04:39 PM
124. At # 121,

Bongo is only a racist term in your mind and you prove (as in this instance) at SP time and again that your mind is perverted, dishonest and racist.

"I'm also not being dishonest when I say you probably wouldn't use the term with your black friends. Would you disagree with this?"

Of course I disagree with it because it is untrue.

You're a small-minded fraud and an embarrassment, and that is why you have no credibility in any discussion. . . . and so on and so on

The fact that I have the truth on my side and you keep coming back with your dishonest inconsistent replies proves otherwise.

Thanks for your comments.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 16, 2014 05:06 PM
125. "Prove it."

Prove it? Stupe, your slurs are plastered all over the last half-dozen threads, including this one. Not only that, instead of denying you did it, you wrote just a few comments ago that you don't care what blacks think about you slurring them. What a stupe.

You need to work on your continuity issues. I suggest that if you didn't lie so damned much, it'd be a hell of a lot easier for you to keep your stories straight. But you're a stupe, so I might as well be talking to a wall.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 16, 2014 06:37 PM
126. At # 125,

You wrote at # 122 that I posted at SP that someone was a "nappy-headed, jive-talking bongo."
I replied "prove it," and your supposed proof at # 125 was to write that "your slurs are plastered all over the last half-dozen threads . . . "

You are a flat out racist liar.
Otherwise, specifically show where I ever wrote what you claim is supposedly "plastered all over.

You have spliced comments out of context and made up a lie in a shallow cynical effort to smear my blog persona with racism. By using lies and focusing dishonestly on race you are the racist in this dialogue and there is no getting around that fact.

The unfortunate but amusing fact you illustrate here is that you are too steeped in your liberal religion of stupidity (PC) and hate to recognize your own silly pathology.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 16, 2014 07:06 PM
127. "your slurs are plastered all over the last half-dozen threads . . . "

Yes, they are - "Nappy-headed, jive-talking bongo"

If you believe it's racist to write such things, then you never should have wrote them. And now to go into denial over it, especially after having written that you don't care what blacks think about your racial slurs, well, that's exactly what a racist with no balls would do.

"smear my blog persona with racism"

You did that to yourself, no assistance from me required. You really do need to learn how to control your anger, Amused, as you always let it get the best of you.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 17, 2014 10:24 AM
128. At # 127,

Really there is nothing at all beneath you is there? You will stoop to anything.
Don't you have any clue what you are doing to yourself with such lies? It doesn't matter to me in the least. Why should it?

You even publicly disrespect your own family and act as if it's just normal to do that.
So, hows "Uncle Frank" doing Johnny?
Does he know you placed a utube video of him in his hospital bed for everyone to view?

He seems like a nice guy, does he know that you are a public exhibitionist of disgusting behavior, moronic self revelations, and outright racist lies about others?
I imagine not.

BTW, I sincerely hope your uncle Frank gets better.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 17, 2014 05:36 PM
129. The Republican party doesn't represent anything anymore. Bipartisanship is the call of the day.

Well, I will in a bipartisan matter vote against incumbents.

Did you know recent surveys show there's more conservatives out there than Republicans.

This will not long stand. A new party will take up the vacuum.

Posted by: Steve on March 17, 2014 06:49 PM
130. The Republican party doesn't represent anything anymore. Bipartisanship is the call of the day.

Well, I will in a bipartisan matter vote against incumbents.

Did you know recent surveys show there's more conservatives out there than Republicans.

This will not long stand. A new party will take up the vacuum.

Posted by: Steve on March 17, 2014 06:49 PM
131. At # 129, 30,

The Republican party is the only party that represents anything anymore and bipartisanship is a fantasy of nitwits like Steve and Beth.

Recent surveys show that people who believe there's more conservatives out there than Republicans molest very small animals and repeat themselves.

And on and on . . . .
Liberals will stoop to anything.
Very amusing indeed

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 17, 2014 07:45 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?