March 12, 2014
Why do House Democrats hate TVW?

TVW, the cable channel broadcasting dry-but-vital coverage of state government, is operating with obsolete remote cameras around the state capitol that are rapidly failing. The cameras cannot be maintained; the manufacturer no longer supports such old equipment, and parts to repair them cannot be obtained.

Hearings, public testimony, and legislative debates in the two chambers and all committee hearing rooms are captured by the remote cameras, but that capability is disappearing fast. Five of the 43 cameras have failed already, including one in the House chamber. That camera was replaced by one from a committee room, leaving hearings in that location uncovered.

With newspapers sending far fewer reporters to cover state government than in the past, and local television stations barely touching the topic, TVW's coverage is more important than ever. Their capital budget request -- $2.84 million for new equipment -- would come out of a $3.6 billion biennial capital budget (which is separate from the $33.6 billion operating budget).

The Senate majority coalition included TVW's request in its supplemental capital budget proposal, but the House took it out, with capital budget committee chairman Hans Dunshee (D-44) saying it's not a priority.

In fact, Dunshee flippantly dismissed the request, saying, "Right, the cameras don't work. But is that important versus things like flood management and mental health?"

Given the importance of TVW's mission -- covering state government's decision-making and interviewing those who make the decisions -- why does Dunshee insist that $2.84 million is too much to spend to protect the public's right to know? He's not known for his flintiness with other spending. Doesn't he want us to know what he and his fellow legislators are up to?

Posted by Adam Faber at March 12, 2014 02:09 PM | Email This
Comments
1. "Why do House Democrats hate TVW?"

I dunno. Why do you now hate funding schools first? That didn't last long, did it? Only a week ago that was all the rage. Rant after rant posted by your readers in these threads. "Fund schools first!!" This week it's cameras. Whatever.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 12, 2014 02:40 PM
2. .
Shorter Adam Faber (HACK!) "Fund TVW First!"

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 12, 2014 04:39 PM
3. .
@1 Dr. Zatoichi,
Who was the schmuck who recently posted here Democrats' least favorite question: Why not fund education first??

Oh yeah, Adam Faber (HACK!) posted that in January.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 12, 2014 04:44 PM
4. "Oh yeah, Adam Faber (HACK!) posted that in January."

It seems like it was only yesterday that it was "Fund schools first!!"

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 12, 2014 05:08 PM
5. TVW is a free source of material for Adam to hack into attack sound-bites. Just as he wanted a government paycheck, which we voters denied him, he wants a subsidy here as well.

I might happily send him a consolation prize, though. Somewhere I still may have a VHS copy, taken from TVW, of the GOP-controlled House working late on a Saturday in the 1990s, to ban gay marriage. (Both Adam and the peanut gallery here constantly wonder why we voters don't give Republicans power more often, and I doubt this will educate them on that point.)

Posted by: tensor on March 12, 2014 06:07 PM
6. @5 tensor on March 12, 2014 06:07 PM,

LOL.

You know, while I support TVW and its mission, the sad fact of the matter is that the "floor" with its cameras is not where the action is any more.
I was trying to think of a floor debate in the past decade that was worth watching. The only thing that comes close was the debate last year (?) to establish marriage equality in WA, and even that ain't very good and informative watching.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 12, 2014 06:40 PM
7. Cockroaches hate sunlight. That is why Democrats hate TVW. Then they can pass more tax breaks for the Tribes like EHB1287.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1287&year=2013

Posted by: Smokie on March 13, 2014 06:13 AM
8. @7: 7. Cockroaches hate sunlight. That is why Democrats hate TVW. Then they can pass more tax breaks for the Tribes like EHB1287.

Indeed. If Senate Republicans only had someone chairing a committee meeting that could have stopped the bill!

Oh, wait.

Posted by: demo kid on March 13, 2014 08:26 AM
9. And that would be mental health funding obviously needed for dumbo, MBS, teabagtensor and the visually impaired surgeon.

Posted by: Hans Dumshee on March 13, 2014 09:01 AM
10. The Senate Bill failed, the House Bill passed. Nice to know Demo Kid is in favor of exempting all tribal off reservation real estate from Property Taxes. I guess we really don't have any funding problems for Transportation or Education. At least any funding problems that cannot be absorbed by a race based gifting of public tax dollars to a sovereign nation.

Posted by: Smokie on March 13, 2014 09:17 AM
11. "Nice to know Demo Kid is in favor of..."

When it's your tax dollars we hear, "It's my money and I should be able to keep it". When it's Native American tax dollars we hear, "race based gifting of public tax dollars", as though it was never their money.

By the way, just WTF does race have to do with anything? Amused will no doubt be proud of you. Perhaps he'll see opportunity to slip in some of his slurs for them now.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Sugeon on March 13, 2014 10:31 AM
12. @10: The Senate Bill failed, the House Bill passed.
The Senate bill got out of committee with the approval and support of the chair, a Republican, and passed the Senate on Monday with only 12 votes against.

Nice to know Demo Kid is in favor of exempting all tribal off reservation real estate from Property Taxes.
Tribal real estate is government real estate, and should be treated no differently with respect to taxes than property owned by the City of Seattle or the University of Washington.

I guess we really don't have any funding problems for Transportation or Education.
We do, but not by inconsistent, knee-jerk taxation policy.

At least any funding problems that cannot be absorbed by a race based gifting of public tax dollars to a sovereign nation.
"Sovereign nation" is the critical component here. It's a distinct government entity, not a private organization.

Posted by: demo kid on March 13, 2014 10:34 AM
13. That's funny Andrew, When the Chinese or the Mexicans want to come in and buy real estate as a Sovereign Nation, I bet you will want to exempt them too. It is a poor bill and aanother giveaway to the Tribes. The Governor should be ashamed to sign it, except for the fact he takes their money.

Posted by: Smokie on March 13, 2014 11:51 AM
14. That's funny Andrew, When the Chinese or the Mexicans want to come in and buy real estate as a Sovereign Nation, I bet you will want to exempt them too. It is a poor bill and aanother giveaway to the Tribes. The Governor should be ashamed to sign it, except for the fact he takes their money.

Posted by: Smokie on March 13, 2014 11:52 AM
15. MBS - stop your 1st response as hating the messenger. Have something to say. How aoubt this....from now on I say you like donkey d1cks on your 1st post? Might not be correct, but hey why not.

Does this post not touch on something that is important to talk about? Is TVW paid for by the state? If so, then make sure it works. Is there a public need? Why not pay for some small cameras and then stream live to any device? Or push this to a public option...though the revenue might not be there, but I bet someone can make revenue by selling a subscription package that you can IM/tweet and then comment on the proceedings and have the Rep or Senator see them (of course see means their staff).

See there...an option or discussion point. Calling someone a name isn't. I thought you were better than that, but I guess I'm disappointed again.

Posted by: Dengle on March 13, 2014 12:14 PM
16. @13/14: That's funny Andrew,
I have no idea who Andrew is, but I'm sure he thinks you're funny too.

When the Chinese or the Mexicans want to come in and buy real estate as a Sovereign Nation, I bet you will want to exempt them too.
We actually do exempt China and Mexico from paying property taxes on real estate.

It is a poor bill and aanother giveaway to the Tribes.
No, it's consistent tax policy and has bipartisan support in the legislature.

The Governor should be ashamed to sign it, except for the fact he takes their money.
It is treating separate, sovereign governments fairly under the state tax structure, and providing support for economic development. Whether he takes their money is irrelevant to that.

Posted by: demo kid on March 13, 2014 12:22 PM
17. @15: Why not pay for some small cameras and then stream live to any device? Or push this to a public option...though the revenue might not be there, but I bet someone can make revenue by selling a subscription package that you can IM/tweet and then comment on the proceedings and have the Rep or Senator see them (of course see means their staff).

I don't think a subscription package would make a lot of money. I think it's a good idea to have coverage, though.

Still, Adam appears less concerned with public disclosure, and more concerned with nitpicking minor portions of the budget for political gain.

Posted by: demo kid on March 13, 2014 12:27 PM
18. "I bet someone can make revenue by selling a subscription package"

That seems contrary to Adam's "public's right to know", which is well taken. That right would now come with a price and corporate profits.

No doubt TVW cameras suck and should be replaced simply because they suck. My Gawd, sometimes the sound is downright horrible. At a time of replacement, other upgrades should be probably considered. The reporting on this isn't clear on just what the exact scope of the replacement project might be. Will the cameras used on the floor, which aren't that bad, be replaced and used then be used elsewhere for another purpose?

You might already know these "small cameras" are not cheap, Dengle, as they would be some level of professional-grade camera, not consumer-grade. I looked into these small pro cameras awhile ago for other reasons and a half-way decent one went for $70K and rented for $1,500/day.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 13, 2014 12:58 PM
19. "See there...an option or discussion point. Calling someone a name isn't. I thought you were better than that, but I guess I'm disappointed again."

Yes, Dengle, we're all sure you had great respect for us yesterday. What-ever.

The point of the first few comments was how quickly the "Fund Education First" sloganeering, which Adam and the peanut gallery here were relentlessly flogging just two months ago, simply disappeared once Adam thought he'd found a new club with which to beat the Democrats.

As MikeBoyScout noted, this particular upgrade isn't even important for TVW's overall mission; coverage of committee hearings (to give just one example) is far more important. My reference to the 1990's gay-bashing festival on the floor of our House stuck in my memory for how little drama it contained; how everyone would vote was already known, nothing left to do but the ugly, bitter, acrimonious personal attacks.

Posted by: tensor on March 13, 2014 01:30 PM
20. Bloomberg: "64% now approve of Obamacare"

I suppose we can ignore that. Let's instead continue to discuss TVW's new cameras and whether or not Republicans should prioritize their replacement over the funding of schools. I say go for it!


Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 13, 2014 01:32 PM
21. @20: Bloomberg: "64% now approve of Obamacare". I suppose we can ignore that.

Of course! Just like we quickly ignored how the stock market didn't decline under Obama...

Posted by: demo kid on March 13, 2014 02:10 PM
22. @18: That seems contrary to Adam's "public's right to know", which is well taken. That right would now come with a price and corporate profits.

There's plenty of public data that you
need to pay for to offset the cost of production. (Property tax data, for example.) But unless you started bare-knuckles boxing in the Senate (kinda like Thailand), almost no one would drop a penny to get TVW. How could a subscription begin to defray costs?

Posted by: demo kid on March 13, 2014 02:52 PM
23. "almost no one would drop a penny to get TVW"

True.

If they're going to do it, I think they should do it right. There's some decent programming on TVW that's unwatchable for me due to the bad cameras and sound.

Perhaps the House Democrats should turn around and say, "Funded! We just wanted to expose Adam Faber as a silly hack (and it worked!)."

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 13, 2014 03:31 PM
24. Shorter All Sound Politics Posts, Ever: Democrats and liberals are irresponsible tax-and-spend fools, except when they're not funding something *I* want.

Posted by: tensor on March 13, 2014 04:12 PM
25. @20 Dr. Zatoichi on March 13, 2014 01:32 PM,

Confused by Everything had previously informed us that any news about ObamaCare is "proof that the ACA is collapsing". You can't argue with that.

So let's move on to the next topic; Fund TVW First!"

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 13, 2014 04:39 PM
26. @15 Dengle on March 13, 2014 12:14 PM,

I don't care what you call me.

Regarding the need to fund the TVW, I'm fine with that. You do understand such a position is contrary to the WA Republican position of Fund Education First budget, no?

So, how do you propose to pay for the TVW expenditure?
Feel free to call me any name you like as you explain how you'll pay for the additional government spending. Perhaps you'll favor one of Adam Faber endorsed candidate Mark Miloscia's tax increases.

I anxiously await your informed reply.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 13, 2014 04:46 PM
27. It isn't against the fund education 1st. If we had spending priorities, then if this didn't fit then it doesn't get funded. Fund education first and base it off a reasonable budget. Our Democratic "leadership" doesn't do that. They believe their is no budget and fund everything. If there is a lack of funds it is raise taxes or lose education, police, fire or emergency services. Why? Why would the top priorities be affected? Because they don't have any and just scare people. We need budget priorities and then make tough decisions as to what "we" are able to fund. The rest goes to the floor. TVW could be part of that.

I'm tired of spending to spend. You are not. That is an issue. I hope you see that we can't keep doing it and I will keep discussing this with you. Demokid...maybe not. hehehe.

BTW - I wouldn't call you that. It is disrespectful, but wanted to make a point. :-)

Posted by: Dengle on March 13, 2014 05:28 PM
28. @27 Dengle on March 13, 2014 05:28 PM,

I understand that you disagree with the WA Republican party's "spending priorities", just like Adam Faber (HACK!) does now.

Did you even read Adam Faber's (HACK!) post?
It is not that House Democrats don't have priorities. It is because they have priorities ("Right, the cameras don't work. But is that important versus things like flood management and mental health?") that additional TVW funding does not make the cut.

Look, all you need to do is get your Republican reps to support your position and all they need to do is convince a majority of the legislature that those are the correct priorities. That's how a representative government works.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 13, 2014 06:07 PM
29. "I'm tired of spending to spend. You are not. That is an issue. I hope you see that we can't keep doing it and I will keep discussing this with you..."

Discussions work better when based in reality. Who has ever proposed "spending just to spend"? The closest I can see to that would be building more and more roads as our traffic worsens, but the costs of road-building never gets questioned here.

I'm all for "fund education first," but the party which produced that slogan then acted contrary to it. I don't vote for politicians who contradict their own stated policies. Do you?

Posted by: tensor on March 13, 2014 06:15 PM
30. "Bloomberg: "64% now approve of Obamacare""

64% of whom ? Democrats would be a good guess. More media garbage, lack of specificity. Catering to the lib progs (aka Obamunists) on here. Nah - its all Adam's fault.

Fund education first - I might go along with that , but not in the education system's current state; being fubared by the WEA union - an appendage of the Democrat Party. They are weak and indoctrinate when they try to teach the core subjects (i.e. history, reading - once in a while, same with writing and arithmetic). That's all Adam's fault - ya sure - LMAO.

Posted by: KDS on March 13, 2014 07:59 PM
31. Sorry....what are the democrats priorities on spending?

Yes, asking about $2.84Million in spending on the cameras isn't education first, but dem's isn't either. They do not want to talk about that....so anytime now a republican talks about say funding prisons they off topic?

Again a budget that did education 1st and then the other priorities is what is needed. do you not agree with that? Isn't education the #1 need? I know folks here and suppose you too have stated we don't spend enough on education. OK. Fund it first in budget and then work down a list of priorities. If TVW isn't part of that, then OK. If social services isn't, then fine. Or agro marketing? Or services for non-citizens...great.

But what are the dem's priorities? I thought it was education, until the republicans said prove it...now it isn't. Demokid it is cause he loves unions and they run education. So he is all for that. Or is it other unions? I can't tell sometimes.

Posted by: Dengle on March 13, 2014 09:55 PM
32. Two things:

1) Obamabots your chances in November for the Senate are Sinking!

2) I think about how much life I have lived since I last commented here and then compare that with you pathetic Obamabots who spent the whole weekend and sunny days of this week blabbering away here about your messiah in the White House. Man I am glad I am not you. 22 useless bot posts in this thread alone. I skied, jogged, swam, played with grand kids, had a dinner party, and ran some new electrical through part of my house all while you Jonestowners railed about Adam Faber who has never once even acknowledged your barking rants. The joke is on you.

Posted by: Mike on March 13, 2014 11:12 PM
33. @30 KDS on March 13, 2014 07:59 PM,
Clearly the poll was skewed!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 14, 2014 04:50 AM
34. "Clearly the poll was skewed!"

Indeed, how can any poll be valid when no one ever asks KDS what he thinks about any topic? It's especially damning when one considers how KDS has been, for years, one of the most well-informed and insightful of the (u)SP brain trust.

"Man I am glad I am not you."

Finally, something upon which we can all agree! (Mike knows we could not have been posting here and having active lifestyles, because he's never seen anyone drag a CRT, keyboard, and tower-mount to a ski resort.)

Posted by: tensor on March 14, 2014 07:52 AM
35. No supplemental capital budget at all, but they took 64 million from the PEBB. I guess when the next earthquake flattens the GA building, it will show that they don't like the State Patrol either.

Posted by: Independent Voter on March 14, 2014 05:04 PM
36. At # 22,

Once pressed to put up or shut up, demokid moves on.

On the last two threads demokid took issue when I wrote that because of the affordable care act or bongo-care, there might well be a conservative sea change in our political representation and offered to bet me $300 that would not happen. He claimed that a bet is the same as an investment and that I was a coward if I didn't take his bet. He also stated that we could work out the details of his supposed investment opportunity.

So, time and again I requested that he provide specific information of the details of his offer so that I can decide what to do, and not vague assurances and nebulous nonsense he called "terms." Having professed to be expert at investing as he does over and again, one would assume that he would obtain specifics and particulars before agreeing to invest in anything.

Now (once again for the umpteenth time), I reiterate, if demokid is - in the lest bit - a man of his word, he will provide me specific details of his offered "investment" opportunity/bet immediately.

This seems reasonable does it not?

Enormously amused by what this means about him, I await his honest answer . . . but
given his record I probably shouldn't "bet" on it.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 14, 2014 07:11 PM
37. @36

And on a related note, if Obamacare is so great, I hope demo kid, tensor, and crew can explain why The White House keeps quietly rolling back so much of the law as to render it useless. And in such a way to make it likely to cause a political sea change that will doom the law.

Socialists, why don't you eat your own dog food?

Posted by: Mike on March 15, 2014 05:32 AM
38. @36. Once pressed to put up or shut up, demokid moves on.

Although our discusssion is irrelevant to this thread, I'll move it here.

I wouldn't quite take the fact that I didn't reply on a Friday night as "moving on". I would take it as having better things to do on a Friday evening than try to address your ranting.

Additionally, when you turn something down twice, yet STILL TALK ABOUT IT, I think that many people would recommend that you move on.

On the last two threads demokid took issue when I wrote that because of the affordable care act or bongo-care...
You're a liar, as you didn't.

...there might well be a conservative sea change in our political representation...
In Olympia, although I don't believe that any change in Congress in November would represent the conservative "sea change" Republicans want.

...and offered to bet me $300 that would not happen.
Absolutely.

He claimed that a bet is the same as an investment...
Investments are bets on expected futures. I, for one, would take a bet on a "quite likely" thing that would give me a 100% return in eight months over the purchase of a blue-chip stock that might give you a few percent over the same period.

...and that I was a coward if I didn't take his bet.
Not simply a coward, but also economically irrational. Probably a worse insult for a purported free-market conservative.

He also stated that we could work out the details of his supposed investment opportunity.
Which is obviously a requirement. You don't know me, I don't know you, and if we were to place a bet, I would want to make sure that we were both comfortable with the arrangement. I can suggest a few things, but I don't even know if you know how to use a computer beyond pounding out nonsense.

So, time and again I requested that he provide specific information of the details of his offer...

I have repeatedly. It is simple -- we put money in escrow (through a service like escrow.com or any one of a number of others), you pick a number, I pick a number, we see who gets closest in November, and the winner collects the cash.

Again, I'm open to what number we pick (number of Republicans elected to the State Senate, etc.) and the service we use (which may even include physically mailing the funds to a third party if that's what you prefer).

...so that I can decide what to do...
You have said twice that you "don't believe in betting", and that you won't take it but other people should. You've made your decision.

...and not vague assurances and nebulous nonsense he called "terms."
I have offered you terms, and suggested that you select the measure you are most comfortable with. We'd need to work out the practical details. I don't know what other assurances you would need, but regardless, you turned down my offers repeatedly.

Having professed to be expert at investing as he does over and again...
I don't profess to be an expert, just that I understand more than you about it. (Unless you're intentionally making bad mistakes, of course.)

...one would assume that he would obtain specifics and particulars before agreeing to invest in anything.
You have zero obligation until the money is committed, and I provided you with enough details to make a decision. What type of escrow service we use is a minor consideration. However, you said it is "quite likely" that the conditions for you to double your investment exist... you should jump at the chance to make money from your belief.

Now (once again for the umpteenth time), I reiterate, if demokid is - in the lest bit - a man of his word, he will provide me specific details of his offered "investment" opportunity/bet immediately.

You've said TWICE that you won't take the bet, and yet you're still asking about it. You "reiterate", I respond, you backpedal.

The way I see it, I have the balls to back up my beliefs. You do not.

This seems reasonable does it not?
It would... except you've said TWICE that you won't accept it because you don't believe in betting.

Enormously amused by what this means about him, I await his honest answer
You've had honest answers from the beginning. Whether you choose to take them is up to you, but I haven't given you the slightest reason to believe that I'm not serious.

. . . but given his record I probably shouldn't "bet" on it.
I reiterate... WHAT record? If anything, after blathering on about this bet, and then turning it down TWICE with made-up excuses is a far more telling record than anything else.

Posted by: demo kid on March 15, 2014 07:07 AM
39. @36: If you do want to continue discussing this, I would suggest we have the option for an additional bet (of the same magnitude) during the summer. (Dependent on you taking this one, of course.)

If there is a conservative "sea change" in the state, one sign would be that the voters would take it out on the liberal House leadership in their home districts, right?

This may not apply everywhere. The Speaker is in a crazy safe district, since the 43rd would vote in a ficus plant if it were a Democrat (true of any solidly partisan district, Republican or Democrat), and no sane member of his party would pick a fight with him. Without a major scandal, that district isn't going to be open.

But what about the House Majority Leader? Sullivan is in a far more competitive district, and a "sea change" would certainly kick him out of office, right? Why not place a similar bet on his vote percentage in the blanket primary, once the full slate of candidates is known?

Should be easy money for someone that believes in a "sea change", right?

Posted by: demo kid on March 15, 2014 08:10 AM
40. "We actually do exempt China and Mexico from paying property taxes on real estate." Prove it Andrew. Other than an official consulate, If a Chinese or Mexican Government Buys property in the United States, show us where they are exempted from local property taxes.

Posted by: Smokie on March 15, 2014 12:36 PM
41. @39,

I agree, WA is a lost cause. I could care less about WA, people here get what they vote for and deserve.

But you are kidding yourself if you think a sea change could not happen in the country as a whole. Look at the polls. Voters are angry, frustrated and confused by Obamacare. As is the White House, which is why they have taken almost all of the teeth out of their own law.

Posted by: Mike on March 15, 2014 02:17 PM
42. "Indeed, how can any poll be valid when no one ever asks KDS what he thinks about any topic? It's especially damning when one considers how KDS has been, for years, one of the most well-informed and insightful of the (u)SP brain trust."

@34 - There you go again - ridiculous and baseless pap- Get a life if you know how. Gee, I don't know why I would have suspected 64% favor Obamacare is a bogus number. I think they framed the question poorly for the low-information voter to answer like the author on Bloomberg (likely a lib-prog) wanted it to show. In that way, it is skewed and an outlier BTW. I challenge to check the Real Clear Politics poll for comparison. Keep trying to make this blog un(SP) - your postings give that some cred.

From @30 - "Fund education first - I might go along with that , but not in the education system's current state; being fubared by the WEA union - an appendage of the Democrat Party. They are weak and indoctrinate when they try to teach the core subjects (i.e. history, reading - once in a while, same with writing and arithmetic). That's all Adam's fault - ya sure - LMAO."

No one has commented on this - interesting. Facts get in the way ? Q: Why have American schools slipped drastically in Math and sciences since the late 1970's ? A: Before then, the Federal Government's Dept. of Education did not exist !


Posted by: KDS on March 15, 2014 02:30 PM
43. KDS pulls from his ass, "I think they framed the question poorly for the low-information voter to answer like the author on Bloomberg (likely a lib-prog) wanted it to show."

Yeah, Bloomberg is a site for poor people, commies and other unsavory anti-capitalists. There's very good reason why I call you Stupe Too (Amused is Stupe the Racist).

"Fifty-one percent of Americans favor retaining the Affordable Care Act with "small modifications," while 13 percent would leave the law intact and 34 percent would repeal it. That's the highest level of public acceptance for the law yet in the Bloomberg poll."

"Investors are betting the law will withstand political challenges. An "Obamacare" portfolio of stocks that benefit from the law developed by the online broker Motif Investing is up 40.9 percent over a year ago as of March 12, almost doubling the performance of the Standard & Poor's 500 index, which returned 22.9 percent."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-12/americans-stick-with-obamacare-as-opposition-burns-bright.html

Hey, Stupe the Racist, did you catch this one?

"Investors are betting the law will withstand political challenges."

So investing is betting, huh? But that's just Bloomberg. You know, as in Investor's Business Daily, the rag for anti-capitalist commies? WTF would they know?

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 15, 2014 03:04 PM
44. @37:

The socialists DO eat their own dog food. They just run it through the dog first.

Posted by: Independent Voter on March 15, 2014 03:50 PM
45. "The socialists DO eat their own dog food. They just run it through the dog first."

Witty. For a 8 year-old. Out of curiosity, how many hours did it take you to come up with that?

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 15, 2014 05:32 PM
46. The left is very angry today. Very, very angry.

Rolling on the floor here, boss.

Posted by: Independent Voter on March 15, 2014 06:20 PM
47. At # 93,

That's right, completely dishonest so . . . change the subject.
Demopunk being a shiftless shameless liberal democrat played up the notion that I was a coward for taking him to task yet refuses to back up his arrogant empty bullshit with action.
Every thing Demopunk does is arrogant empty bullshit.

Big surprise.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 15, 2014 06:36 PM
48. At # 46,

Good job ;>)

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 15, 2014 10:23 PM
49. @47: That's right, completely dishonest so . . . change the subject.
You were the one that posted a comment on an unrelated thread.

Demopunk being a shiftless shameless liberal democrat...
You're throwing insults with zero basis in fact, and zero proof to back it up. (Most frustrating of which is "democrat", as I am not one, and never claimed to be one.)

...played up the notion that I was a coward for taking him to task...
Again, you're a liar. I'm calling you a coward for not taking a bet that you claimed would be "quite likely" for you to win. You certainly haven't "taken me to task".

...yet refuses to back up his arrogant empty bullshit with action.
Please. Have you accepted this wager now? If not, why should I bother giving you account information from escrow.com or PayPal? The terms of the bet are clear, and you've said previously that you won't take them. Twice. That seems more like "no action to me".

You don't need additional information, and you certainly don't need more weak excuses. You need to man up and say that you believe in what you say and that you're willing to put money on it, or you need to be honest and say that you were a liar and you don't believe what you said.

Every thing Demopunk does is arrogant empty bullshit.
Name one thing that is "arrogant empty bullshit" from what I've said. I'm thinking your comments are now simply just projection, since you're not willing to actually prove that you believe what you say.

Heck, all you're doing is whining how you were butthurt over how I called you out on your blatant dishonesty. Beyond getting some balls and a spine, please get some dignity first.

Oh, and what about that second wager? Are you going to ignore that too?

Posted by: demo kid on March 15, 2014 10:33 PM
50. @40: Other than an official consulate, If a Chinese or Mexican Government Buys property in the United States, show us where they are exempted from local property taxes.

Joe, if you know the answer, why did you bother to make a comment? I would, of course, include diplomatic residences in that too.

Posted by: demo kid on March 15, 2014 10:38 PM
51. At # 49,

More nonsensical bullshit about me getting balls and butthurt and on and on.

And . . . second wager?

You refuse to offer terms concerning your first "investment opportunity" . . . now you want a second?

O.K., what are the terms to this new bet???
Shall I come to your house and we talk about it.

What is your address?
Fucking moron.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 16, 2014 09:52 AM
52. It's not as if TVW were an objective CSPAN-recorder. The interviews on TVW are framed by comments and editorializing by the moderators... all, so far as I can tell, are Democrats. I would think the Democrats would be only too pleased to fund it.

Posted by: Kieth Nissen on March 16, 2014 10:25 AM
53. And as usual, Dr. Steve the Blind Observer cannot see reality. @18 False. You can easily record and stream more than adequate HD video with a Prosumer Canon for about $2500. Many other state and local governments do this all the time, because that is what is within their means. Go attend a City Hall meeting and look at the cameras they have. But what would a WA Obamabot know about staying within a budget, right? I am sure that a friend of Obama or Inslee or some other WA Democrat will sell WA TVW Cameras that are WAY more than what is needed for $70K each, and pocket the profit. Maybe that's Dr. Steve's business since he claims to know a lot about expensive cameras?

It's the new oligarchy where Obama looks more like Putin ever day (minus the balls.) And even the Obamabot cronies are now mainly about lining their own pockets and becoming hated by their base.

Posted by: Mike on March 16, 2014 12:03 PM
54. The point remains the same. The angry left has only name calling, threats, stalking, innuendos, and parody diaper fetish blogs to work with.

How do I know this?

I was attacked in all these ways before they got their buddies to ban me from commenting on The Olympian website a few years back.

Just because I disagreed.

When I disagree with a conservative, their reply is more like "go ahead, see how it works for you".

When I disagree with a liberal, they bring in all their friends to try to "get even.

And that, my friend, is the difference.

Posted by: Independent Voter on March 16, 2014 12:10 PM
55. @51: More nonsensical bullshit about me getting balls and butthurt and on and on.
You're DEFINITELY butthurt -- you're still moaning and complaining about a bet you said (twice) you won't even take. And what's "nonsensical"? You still haven't defined what you find "nonsensical" -- just because you don't understand even slightly difficult concepts does mean they're "nonsense".

And . . . second wager? You refuse to offer terms concerning your first "investment opportunity" . . . now you want a second?
The outcome in your home district would prove a "sea-change" too, and you will have more knowledge about that race. So you won't take that either? To me, that would give you even better chances than "quite likely".

O.K., what are the terms to this new bet??? Shall I come to your house and we talk about it.
If you cannot make up your mind given the information I've provided, what's the point? You haven't told me what "terms" would make you change your mind, or how these conditions are inadequate.

What is your address? Fucking moron.

No, I'd be a moron to give an unhinged lunatic like you my address. Why do you think I stay anonymous? It's not because I'm embarrassed about what I say, and more because I don't like people showing up at my doorstep unannounced and armed.

Face it... you don't have the stones to back up anything you write here. All you can do is to play to your hometown crowd by throwing insults at stereotypical liberals, without realizing the gaps flaws in your arguments. That's fine when you're preaching to the choir, but the general public doesn't find your bullshit endearing or even palatable.

And heck, if you cannot cogently define your position to ONE center-left (and yes, I'm "center-left") dude on a blog, what makes you think you can convince anyone of anything?

Posted by: demo kid on March 16, 2014 12:19 PM
56. @54: The angry left has only name calling, threats, stalking, innuendos, and parody diaper fetish blogs to work with.

Apparently you haven't read these comments:

"Demopunk being a shiftless shameless liberal democrat played up the notion that I was a coward for taking him to task yet refuses to back up his arrogant empty bullshit with action."

"Get a life if you know how."

"The socialists DO eat their own dog food. They just run it through the dog first." (Oh, wait, that was you, right?)

Seems like the right has only "name calling, threats, stalking, innuendos, and parody diaper fetish sites" too. I haven't seen an intelligent comment on this board since the heavyweights stopped posting.

I was attacked in all these ways before they got their buddies to ban me from commenting on The Olympian website a few years back.
Cry me a river. Do you believe that tensor, MBS, Dr. Z., etc. have not been attacked by the rabid right? Or that I wasn't banned from this site for a while for opposing Saint Stefan? You don't seem to be paying attention.

When I disagree with a conservative, their reply is more like "go ahead, see how it works for you".
Because you're a conservative.

When I disagree with a liberal, they bring in all their friends to try to "get even.
Because you're posting on the Internet. And trust me, I've had some conservatives "bring in all their friends to try to get even".

And that, my friend, is the difference.
This is the most absurd part -- you keep telling yourself there is a difference, when THERE IS ZERO DIFFERENCE. I've met rude and dumb liberals and respectful, thoughtful conservatives... and vice versa. One of my good friends is a pretty solid economic conservative, another is a diehard earthy crunchy far left hippie... and I can trust them both since that friendship has NOTHING to do with their political orientation.

Posted by: demo kid on March 16, 2014 12:37 PM
57. No-Info, who so far has only given us, "The socialists DO eat their own dog food. They just run it through the dog first", we get this gem,

"The angry left has only name calling, threats, stalking, innuendos, and parody diaper fetish blogs to work with."

Whatever.

"You can easily record and stream more than adequate HD video with a Prosumer Canon for about $2500."

Prosumer - a high-end consumer camcorder. This isn't your city hall lobby feed, TVW is a cable network that competes with other channels. Try $58K each for studio camera, and that's just the camera bodies.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/738475-REG/Panasonic_AK_HC3500_AK_HC3500_Multi_Format_Camcorder.html

TVW only has 40 cameras. You say that these cameras can be replaced for $2,500 each, or $100K total, and yet you are harping on and on about Democrats not wanting to pass a bill which spends an average of $70K per camera. Really, Mike, you might want to at least hope that you're getting better than $2,500 prosumer-grade hand-held camcorders for all the taxpayer's money you want us to spend.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 16, 2014 02:46 PM
58. @57: Really, Mike, you might want to at least hope that you're getting better than $2,500 prosumer-grade hand-held camcorders for all the taxpayer's money you want us to spend.

Maybe he just wants to tape an iPhone to a stick and really come in under budget.

Posted by: demo kid on March 16, 2014 03:11 PM
59. Demokid here and there, wherever, who cares?

Because it is tedious lies strung together with more tedious lies and goes nowhere interesting, I don't bother to read much of your crap any more.

Neither do I care in the least what you think of me. I am interested in understanding why you believe some of the idiotic things you do, but because endless strings of empty tactics become boring, your comments are mostly a waste of time.

A couple of interesting facts for you though.

First, I don't believe in betting because it is strictly illegal. If I were inclined to bet someone it would never be someone like you because it would turn into something very bad for both of us. You demonstrate a complete dishonesty that would manifest itself in a problem you could never handle. That is part of the reason why gambling of the type you solicited can result in conviction and prison time as class B and class C felonies.

It is also strictly illegal and punishable as a class B felony for any "escrow company" or other institution to hold money for bets. That is called bookmaking. You would know that if you actually knew much of anything.

All of the rest of your blowhard nonsense about investing is just bullshit, and not even interesting bullshit.

But you are no doubt (that you know of) a very smart and brave man.
Thanks.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 16, 2014 04:06 PM
60. Demo-bore,

Little tag-end for you.
Soliciting bets with people on the web is also a felony in Washington State punishable with prison time.
You are provably guilty of a Class C felony on at least three threads at SP.

If I were you, I would keep that in mind when you go around playing big-shot badinage with people on blogs.

Just a little friendly hint to an arrogant ass-hole that richly deserves some jail time and a lot of humiliation.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 16, 2014 05:38 PM
61. "Soliciting bets with people on the web is also a felony in Washington State punishable with prison time."

So advises the stupe who just two threads ago threatened to shoot a commenter (and cute little Girl Scouts) if he (they) ever looked at him wrong.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 16, 2014 06:49 PM
62. At # 61,

Simply amazing.
Thanks for the interesting lessons in liberalism.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 16, 2014 07:12 PM
63.
@59: Because it is tedious lies strung together with more tedious lies and goes nowhere interesting, I don't bother to read much of your crap any more.
You're severely lacking in character. While you have never proven that I lie, I've shown you to be a liar and fraud multiple times.

Neither do I care in the least what you think of me.
Regardless, I'm amused that you continue to humiliate yourself even when you "don't care".

I am interested in understanding why you believe some of the idiotic things you do, but because endless strings of empty tactics become boring, your comments are mostly a waste of time.
You refusing to take a bet that I offer is a waste of my time.

A couple of interesting facts for you though.
Not really.

First, I don't believe in betting because it is strictly illegal.
It is not strictly illegal. Read the law.

If I were inclined to bet someone it would never be someone like you because it would turn into something very bad for both of us. You demonstrate a complete dishonesty that would manifest itself in a problem you could never handle.
I have not been dishonest here, or given you any indication that I wouldn't follow through. You haven't proven the contrary.

That is part of the reason why gambling of the type you solicited can result in conviction and prison time as class B and class C felonies.
Again, a lie. A one-time $300 bet between two people is NOT a felony. I am not a professional and not taking a fee. A $30,000 bet, or a bet with multiple people as you suggested, WOULD be.

It is also strictly illegal and punishable as a class B felony for any "escrow company" or other institution to hold money for bets. That is called bookmaking. You would know that if you actually knew much of anything.

This is only bookmaking if the institution would make money on such a thing. This is why I was having an issue with finding a good strategy for holding the funds. PayPal doesn't hold funds for one-on-one betting for this very reason. However, I had no idea whether you would be up for the challenge of finding an alternative.

All this is moot, of course, given that I offered an alternate approach: donate to charity. If you were concerned about the legality of a transaction between the two of us but sincere in your belief, we could easily just donate to one charity. I would have zero problem with that, and offered it as a solution multiple times.

But you wussed out even on that. Figures.

All of the rest of your blowhard nonsense about investing is just bullshit, and not even interesting bullshit.
It's still true, even if you cannot comprehend it.

But you are no doubt (that you know of) a very smart and brave man.
Thanks. Can't say the same about you.

@60: Soliciting bets with people on the web is also a felony in Washington State punishable with prison time. You are provably guilty of a Class C felony on at least three threads at SP.
I'm simply suggesting that we make arrangements off line. If (u)SP suddenly became a hub for arranging political bets, or this weren't a one-time-only thing, it would be very different.

If you feel differently, then please report me to the Washington State Gambling Commission. I would enjoy getting arrested for a "friendly" bet between two people.

But irregardless, you're a demonstrated coward and liar that enjoys making excuses instead of providing evidence of your belief. And unlike you, I have proof of what I say.

If I were you, I would keep that in mind when you go around playing big-shot badinage with people on blogs.
I don't need to play big shot. I'm just showing that you have no balls. Quite effectively, in fact.

Just a little friendly hint to an arrogant ass-hole that richly deserves some jail time and a lot of humiliation.
In response to the massive amount of humiliation you've received here?

Finally, stop wasting my fucking time. If you're going to claim that I'm guilty of a Class C felony, then report me to the government and get me convicted.

Otherwise, let's not forget that this is all because you shot your damned fool mouth off and got called on it. I've proven my point. Unless you have anything else to add, you have shown that you're not willing to stand up for the things you believe in, and see fit to hide behind excuses instead.

What a coward.

Posted by: demo kid on March 16, 2014 08:18 PM
64. At # 63,

Everything you write is invented to suit your pathetic arrogant narcissistic ego trip.

According to you, betting is "is not strictly illegal. Read the law. "

Looks as if maybe you should read it.
Try RCW 9.46.0237, "Gambling," RCW 9.47.120, Bunco Steering, and RCW 9.46.240 Gambling Information, Transmitting or Receiving" just for starters among other laws that also prohibit solicitation to criminal activities on the internet.
Yes democrap, betting is strictly illegal as is solicitation of bets here at SP.

And BTW scumbag punk, if you would like to send me your name and address, I will be happy to refer your criminal activity to the King County Prosecutor's office. Still, I would never do anything that would require me to have anything to do with you because nothing but harm ever comes from a dishonest scum-bag like you.

However, being invincibly ignorant of anything that doesn't fit with your arrogant outlook, it wouldn't surprise anyone if you post again to bet me that I just made up the law. Because there are so many liberal democrats like you, no one can keep up with it, so scumbag punks like you get away with lots of criminal activity.

Thanks for the interesting lessons in unrestrained liberal democrat delusions of competency based on pure ego.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 16, 2014 09:01 PM
65. And BTW democrap brainiac,

Bookmaking is trafficking in bets for money you stupid son of a bitch.
Do you suppose any Escrow Company would hold and distribute gambling money for free?
Name one Escrow Company that would ever consider banking a bet?

Very very amusing.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 16, 2014 09:07 PM
66. @64: Everything you write is invented to suit your pathetic arrogant narcissistic ego trip.
I should say the same for you. I expose you for a fraud, you whine and complain. Very butthurt.

Looks as if maybe you should read it. Try RCW 9.46.0237, "Gambling," RCW 9.47.120, Bunco Steering, and RCW 9.46.240 Gambling Information, Transmitting or Receiving" just for starters among other laws that also prohibit solicitation to criminal activities on the internet.
Bunco steering? You really are dense. It is clearly inapplicable here. You're just reading the RCW and throwing random sections of the law as "arguments" in the hopes that people will not realize you're a paper tiger.

Yes democrap, betting is strictly illegal as is solicitation of bets here at SP.
Betting is "strictly illegal"? News to me. The folks I know that bought a Powerball ticket last week might be surprised too.

And yes, if (u)SP turned into a betting exchange, it would be illegal. However, I'd hazard a guess that a "friendly" wager -- if you even agreed to it! -- would garner just about as much attention from the cops as would a high-stakes poker game in your house with your buddies. (Which, by the way, would also technically be illegal.)

And BTW scumbag punk, if you would like to send me your name and address, I will be happy to refer your criminal activity to the King County Prosecutor's office.
You can't even get that right. You'd be referring it to the Washington State Gambling Commmission. If you purportedly know the law, you should know that. Still, I challenge you to make a complaint.

Still, I would never do anything that would require me to have anything to do with you because nothing but harm ever comes from a dishonest scum-bag like you.
Yep... no balls, lots of excuses.

However, being invincibly ignorant of anything that doesn't fit with your arrogant outlook...
I'm not the one arrogantly making claims without evidence. I can demonstrate that you're a coward, a liar, and that you don't know nearly what you think you do. Conversely, aside from suggesting a friendly wager (potentially for charity!), you have zero proof of my wanton immorality.

...it wouldn't surprise anyone if you post again to bet me that I just made up the law.
I can read, unlike you, apparently. However, I challenge you to find someone that would prosecute a one-off bet. (Although the Commission DOES bust little old ladies playing poker...)

Because there are so many liberal democrats like you, no one can keep up with it, so scumbag punks like you get away with lots of criminal activity.
The only scumbag punk here is the one that prances around and makes really stupid statements, and then makes excuses when forced to back them up. What a loser.

Thanks for the interesting lessons in unrestrained liberal democrat delusions of competency based on pure ego.
It's no delusion -- you're clearly incompetent. You've demonstrated it over and over again. Shall I summarize?

@65: And BTW democrap brainiac, Bookmaking is trafficking in bets for money you stupid son of a bitch.
I'm starting to believe you're willfully stupid and illiterate. I used the correct definition when I said: "This is only bookmaking if the institution would make money on such a thing." If you are not receiving fees or doing this professionally, it is not considered "bookmaking" under the law.

Do you suppose any Escrow Company would hold and distribute gambling money for free? Name one Escrow Company that would ever consider banking a bet?

Again, I addressed this. If you and I have a one-off arrangement to prove that you actually have the stones to back up what you blather on about, I have no idea whether PayPal would crack down on it. Technically, it would be against their terms of service, but as we're not running a long-term gambling service, it could skate through.

Even if this wasn't an option, there are other options which would not be "bookmaking" under the law. Again, this is why I was saying that it would be a challenge (but not impossible).

But still, you're simply hiding like a little baby behind excuses and hoping people will forget that you're a liar and fraud, instead of admitting you cannot back up the pronouncements you make. And as I said, donations to charity could get around all of these legal questions you address...

If you had balls, of course.

Very very amusing.
Yes, indeed. Go slink home.

Posted by: demo kid on March 16, 2014 10:35 PM
67. At # 63,

So Democrap "the genius in his own ego-trip" writes at # 63 that a bet for $300 is NOT a felony and calls me a liar for claiming that it is.
Of course Washington law says otherwise.

Then he goes on to blather ignorantly that he is "not a professional [presumably gambler] and not taking a fee" as if that mattered.
Of course, Washington's gambling laws make no distinctions about the gambling amount or the profession of the solicitor of the bet.

Then in a panic to score a lame point he writes stupidly that a "$30,000 bet, or a bet with multiple people as you [I] suggested, WOULD be."
Apparently that is, presumably I would also somehow be guilty of committing a felony. Stupid.
This is what happens when a superficial liberal democrat clown like demokid makes things up as he goes along.

Because I know it is illegal, and prone to serious problems, I never offered or agreed to any "investment/bet" offered by demokid and the record proves this simple fact.

So democrap, you claim that I should be referring this criminal activity of yours to the Washington State Gambling Commmission [sic]? Wrong. They regulate "legal" gambling you dumb son of a bitch.

You have yet to reply consistently here so nothing is surprising in your hapless (neener neener) replies. I seriously doubt you have the balls to provide your name and address so I can refer it to the prosecutors office for criminal charges.

You won no points with anyone but your pathetic ego and you only proved once again that you believe you know much more than you actually do and you are completely incapable of admitting when you are wrong.

Very very funny.
Thanks for your comments.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 16, 2014 11:06 PM
68. At #66,

Democrap states that " I used the correct definition when I said: "This is only bookmaking if the institution would make money on such a thing."

Definition?
They make their money on the fee you dumb son of a bitch.

Then you pontificate, "If you are not receiving fees or doing this professionally, it is not considered "bookmaking" under the law.
Where is that written genius? In your ego?

You are pulling this out of your arrogant ass.

Then you double-down with "If you and I have a one-off arrangement to prove that you actually have the stones to back up what you blather on about, I have no idea whether PayPal would crack down on it. Technically, it would be against their terms of service, but as we're not running a long-term gambling service, it could skate through.

Suddenly escrow companies become Pay-pal???

And then you backpedal like crazy with "Technically, it would be against their terms of service . . . "
Could that be because bookmaking is strictly illegal for them under the law moron???

Your is truly unbelievable invincible ignorance backed by obdurate egotism that knows no bounds.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 16, 2014 11:37 PM
69. Democrap also writes at # 63,

But still, you're simply hiding like a little baby behind excuses and hoping people will forget that you're a liar and fraud, instead of admitting you cannot back up the pronouncements you make."

Hiding?
How?
Because I refuse to commit a felony to satisfy the sensibilities of a shameless liberal democrat petty criminal?
And since when was illegality an excuse??
Oh sorry, I forgot, you are a liberal democrat. The law means nothing to you.

"And as I said, donations to charity could get around all of these legal questions you address...

Donations to charity are one thing, I would never get involved in any transaction with a scumbag like you.
I know better.
You are completely dishonest and your comments prove it.
Thanks for your comments.
Very interesting.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 16, 2014 11:52 PM
70. When you don't want the public to know what you're doing, cameras aren't a priority. Open government---soooo overrated (if you're a democrat). The public would like the disinfectant of sunlight, however, even though the democrats wish to hide their special-interest-driven activity. Shell out---

Posted by: Monterey on March 17, 2014 12:36 AM
71. Still waiting Andrew, where is your citiation that commerical/residential real property purchased in the United States by Foreign Governments is local property tax exempt?

Posted by: Smokie on March 17, 2014 05:57 AM
72. "you son of a bitch!"

If you think Amused blew his top in uncontrollable anger at Demo Kid, you should see his reaction to a little Girl Scout knocking on his door. Those cute little lesbian-commie Girl Scouts with their tasty Samoa cookies really set him off.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 17, 2014 06:05 AM
73. "Still waiting Andrew, where is your citiation that commerical/residential real property purchased in the United States by Foreign Governments is local property tax exempt?"

RCW 84.36.010

"All property belonging exclusively to a foreign national government is exempt from taxation if that property is used exclusively as an office or residence for a consul or other official representative of the foreign national government, and if the consul or other official representative is a citizen of that foreign nation."

Posted by: Andrew on March 17, 2014 07:23 AM
74. @67: I'm getting tired of this. It's like trying to explain calculus to the family dog. Just go ahead and file a complaint with the Gambling Commission already.

So Democrap "the genius in his own ego-trip" writes at # 63 that a bet for $300 is NOT a felony and calls me a liar for claiming that it is.
A one-time bet between two people for $300? If you define that as "professional gambling", which is what the law works to manage, you're completely out to lunch.

Of course Washington law says otherwise.
You're lying.

Then he goes on to blather ignorantly that he is "not a professional [presumably gambler] and not taking a fee" as if that mattered.
It does matter. It's right in the law.

Of course, Washington's gambling laws make no distinctions about the gambling amount or the profession of the solicitor of the bet.
There are distinctions right in the law. Read it again.

Then in a panic to score a lame point he writes stupidly that a "$30,000 bet, or a bet with multiple people as you [I] suggested, WOULD be."
True, I was probably too hasty with that. However, the severity of penalties for professional gambling under the law does depend on both the number of people involved and the amount.

Apparently that is, presumably I would also somehow be guilty of committing a felony. Stupid.
What? You're not making any sense.

This is what happens when a superficial liberal democrat clown like demokid makes things up as he goes along.
What happens? I know that you look like a fool...

Because I know it is illegal, and prone to serious problems, I never offered or agreed to any "investment/bet" offered by demokid and the record proves this simple fact.
You also did not agree to a donation to charity. You're avoiding anything related to proving your beliefs with real evidence.

So democrap, you claim that I should be referring this criminal activity of yours to the Washington State Gambling Commmission [sic]? Wrong. They regulate "legal" gambling you dumb son of a bitch.
I'm actually a smart son of a bitch, despite my inability to see that extra m in "commmission". If they regulate "legal" gambling, they also by definition regulate illegal gambling.

You have yet to reply consistently here so nothing is surprising in your hapless (neener neener) replies. I seriously doubt you have the balls to provide your name and address so I can refer it to the prosecutors office for criminal charges.
Sorry, but you're the one without the balls. You file the complaint and I'll cooperate with whatever comes of it. (I really do want you to file. Seriously.) If you don't, what's the point of your whining?

You won no points with anyone but your pathetic ego and you only proved once again that you believe you know much more than you actually do and you are completely incapable of admitting when you are wrong.
You're projecting. You still have not admitted that you don't really believe in a conservative sea-change. You use plenty of excuses, but all this exchange boils down to is the fact that you don't really support what you write.

@68. Definition? They make their money on the fee you dumb son of a bitch.
Which is EXACTLY what I said.

Then you pontificate, "If you are not receiving fees or doing this professionally, it is not considered "bookmaking" under the law. Where is that written genius? In your ego? You are pulling this out of your arrogant ass.
Oh my god. Read RCW 9.46.0213. I can't do your research for you, even if you're too stupid to do it yourself.

Suddenly escrow companies become Pay-pal???
No, but PayPal is an escrow service. It is their core business.

And then you backpedal like crazy with "Technically, it would be against their terms of service . . . "
Why exactly is that backpedaling? I'm saying that it might be possible, but they could deny it under their customer agreement.

Could that be because bookmaking is strictly illegal for them under the law moron???
It's not illegal everywhere, but it is against PayPal terms of service everywhere.

Your is truly unbelievable invincible ignorance backed by obdurate egotism that knows no bounds.
I'll avoid using the "sic" there, and just compliment your brilliant word-a-day calendar.

@69: Democrap also writes at # 63,
You're still going?

But still, you're simply hiding like a little baby behind excuses and hoping people will forget that you're a liar and fraud, instead of admitting you cannot back up the pronouncements you make."
Yes. Exactly.

Hiding? How?
By refusing the wager and avoiding the underlying issue with excuses.

Because I refuse to commit a felony to satisfy the sensibilities of a shameless liberal democrat petty criminal? And since when was illegality an excuse??
I gave you an opportunity to make a completely legal bet, with any safeguards you would ask for, and you still turned it down. You're a coward and a fraud. Why should anyone think otherwise?

Oh sorry, I forgot, you are a liberal democrat. The law means nothing to you.
I'm not a Democrat. And you're dumb as a box of rocks regardless of party membership.

Donations to charity are one thing, I would never get involved in any transaction with a scumbag like you.
And I'm beginning to realize that I shouldn't get involved in transactions with completely spineless creeps.

I know better. You are completely dishonest and your comments prove it.
You haven't proven anything. I, however, have proven that you are completely gonad-free, unable to read, and very, very stupid.

Posted by: demo kid on March 17, 2014 07:38 AM
75. @73. "Still waiting Andrew, where is your citiation that commerical/residential real property purchased in the United States by Foreign Governments is local property tax exempt?"

Thanks, Dr. Z!

Posted by: demo kid on March 17, 2014 08:46 AM
76. At # 74,

You are "getting tired of this" because dishonesty is taxing to the spirit and you are losing the argument in a big way.

Who is the pet dog here? I didn't define Professional Gambling because it is irrelevant to my claim; read the law you dumb son of a bitch, it says nothing about wager amounts or "professional gambling," just gambling. You are full of shit as usual. Again, this is what happens when a superficial liberal democrat clown like you makes things up as he goes along. Being a superficial egotist you conflate laws together sloppily and make things up the way you like them even though they are untrue.

You wrote that a bet for $300 is NOT a felony and I replied "Of course Washington law says otherwise . . . "and you replied reflexively, "You're lying"
The foremost statute that prohibits gambling is as follows verbatim:
RCW 9.46.0237
"Gambling."

"Gambling," as used in this chapter, means staking or risking something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the person's control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.

Gambling does not include fishing derbies as defined by this chapter, parimutuel betting and handicapping contests as authorized by chapter 67.16 RCW, bona fide business transactions valid under the law of contracts, including, but not limited to, contracts for the purchase or sale at a future date of securities or commodities, and agreements to compensate for loss caused by the happening of chance, including, but not limited to, contracts of indemnity or guarantee and life, health, or accident insurance. In addition, a contest of chance which is specifically excluded from the definition of lottery under this chapter shall not constitute gambling.

[2005 c 351 § 1; 1987 c 4 § 10. Formerly RCW 9.46.020(9).]

You can read can you not? Where is my supposed lie??

I also wrote clearly that it doesn't matter if one is not a professional gambler and not taking a fee, and democrap wrote "It does matter. It's right in the law." Then you repeated once again, "There are distinctions right in the law. Read it again."
Where in this statute (read above) does it discuss wager amounts or professional gambling? You are applying the wrong statute genius. The one that I claim you violated and the only one that matters in context is above.

You claim that I should be referring this criminal activity of yours to the Washington State Gambling Commmission [sic]? They regulate "legal" gambling. When I pointed out that the Washington State Gambling Commission only regulates legal gambling, democrap the genius in his own ego . . . replies "I'm actually a smart son of a bitch, despite my inability to see that extra m in "commmission" and "If they regulate "legal" gambling, they also by definition regulate illegal gambling."

Discursively interesting but factually wrong.

First, if your were anywhere near as smart as you have yourself convinced, you would have backed away from this argument because you are completely out of your depth. While the Gambling Commission does some broad-based investigations of illegal activity and may recommend action to County Prosecutors, they have no legal power to enforce State law. Only County prosecutors have the discretionary power in Washington State to prosecute felonies so if you grow the balls to provide your name and address, I will happily refer your gambling solicitation activity to Dan Satterburg's office.

Again thanks for your kind offer that, "You file the complaint and I'll cooperate with whatever comes of it . . . and "I really do want you to file . . . " That's a hoot!! What bullshit bravado!@!!
How amusing indeed!!!!!

Democrap, you weasel out of everything else, who believes you mean this? If you really do want me to file a complaint against you, provide your name and address." I would be delighted. Otherwise it proves that your betting invitations are only cheap empty liberal democrat tactics andyou would never pay if you lost.

Red-Herring NEWSFLASH FOR DEMOCRAP. I never accused you of Professional Gambling. I accused you of soliciting gambling which is strictly illegal. I also claimed that escrow companies are not allowed legally to hold bets and legally speaking, they are not. Read the statutes.

RCW 9.46.0213 provides:

"Bookmaking.""Bookmaking," as used in this chapter, means accepting bets, upon the outcome of future contingent events, as a business or in which the bettor is charged a fee or "vigorish" for the opportunity to place a bet.
[1991 c 261 § 1; 1987 c 4 § 5. Formerly RCW 9.46.020(4).]

Except where users (ostensibly gamblers like you) must acknowledge and agree that all bets made on the website are non-binding (ergo where no gambling or betting occurs), it is strictly illegal for any escrow service to engage in betting or gambling activities because it is bookmaking (professional gambling for profit). See, Internet Community & Entertainment v. State Of Wa Gambling Comm'n.
Otherwise it is strictly illegal for escrow companies or any other companies to escrow gambling bets.

Democrap, pay attention here asshole. To make a bet, and then explicitly agree that it is not binding, means it is not a bet. Such a bet represents an arrangement of trust between people and you are not trustworthy. No sane person who reviews your behavior in regards to this investment/betting scam of yours would ever engage in a bet with you because they would never collect. You prove over and again to be an empty incompetent windbag with nothing but baseless claims and empty cynical liberal democrat bullshit.

Thanks so much for your comments.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 17, 2014 11:45 AM
77. @76: You are "getting tired of this" because dishonesty is taxing to the spirit and you are losing the argument in a big way.
No, I'm getting tired because when you consistently lie, it's pointless to argue. You cannot understand the truth.

Who is the pet dog here?
You're right... my dog is smarter.

I didn't define Professional Gambling because it is irrelevant to my claim; read the law you dumb son of a bitch, it says nothing about wager amounts or "professional gambling," just gambling.
The criminal charge here is professional gambling, and it's a gross misdemeanor, not a felony.

You are full of shit as usual. Again, this is what happens when a superficial liberal democrat clown like you makes things up as he goes along.
Then why are you just getting around to talking about this?

Being a superficial egotist you conflate laws together sloppily and make things up the way you like them even though they are untrue.
You cannot even get things right.

The foremost statute that prohibits gambling is as follows verbatim: RCW 9.46.0237 "Gambling."
Ugh. That's a definition, not a statute prohibiting gambling.

Where in this statute (read above) does it discuss wager amounts or professional gambling? You are applying the wrong statute genius. The one that I claim you violated and the only one that matters in context is above.
You didn't even get that one right, as it is a definition. Think you need to read the law again.

First, if your were anywhere near as smart as you have yourself convinced, you would have backed away from this argument because you are completely out of your depth. While the Gambling Commission does some broad-based investigations of illegal activity and may recommend action to County Prosecutors, they have no legal power to enforce State law.
You pretty much just answered your own question there. Investigations are handled by the Commission. I think you're out of your depth since you cannot read simple sentences.

Only County prosecutors have the discretionary power in Washington State to prosecute felonies so if you grow the balls to provide your name and address, I will happily refer your gambling solicitation activity to Dan Satterburg's office.
If you were to do such a thing, they would refer you to the Gambling Commission.

Again thanks for your kind offer that, "You file the complaint and I'll cooperate with whatever comes of it . . . and "I really do want you to file . . . " That's a hoot!! What bullshit bravado!@!! How amusing indeed!!!!!
Are you going to file?

Democrap, you weasel out of everything else, who believes you mean this? If you really do want me to file a complaint against you, provide your name and address." I would be delighted. Otherwise it proves that your betting invitations are only cheap empty liberal democrat tactics andyou would never pay if you lost.
How about this... you talk with the Gambling Commission and provide the details of what went on here. Then, you tell me what they say. If they're eager to prosecute, then let me know and we can come to some sort of arrangement.

Red-Herring NEWSFLASH FOR DEMOCRAP. I never accused you of Professional Gambling.
And yet you claim that my actions are illegal because of a definition, not a prohibition. You don't understand the law.

I accused you of soliciting gambling which is strictly illegal. I also claimed that escrow companies are not allowed legally to hold bets and legally speaking, they are not. Read the statutes.
I never claimed they were legal. However, if the Gambling Commission is going to let little old ladies skate by with illegal games for months -- not to mention all of the illegal office betting pools! -- I don't think they're going to care about a friendly $300 wager between two people. If I started taking bets from more than just you, they might take more of an interest.

Except where users (ostensibly gamblers like you) must acknowledge and agree that all bets made on the website are non-binding (ergo where no gambling or betting occurs), it is strictly illegal for any escrow service to engage in betting or gambling activities because it is bookmaking (professional gambling for profit). See, Internet Community & Entertainment v. State Of Wa Gambling Comm'n. Otherwise it is strictly illegal for escrow companies or any other companies to escrow gambling bets.
Did I say this was incorrect? Why are you bothering to argue?

Democrap, pay attention here asshole.
Are you pointing to your own asshole? Because I'm thinking that it's just as likely to make sense.

To make a bet, and then explicitly agree that it is not binding, means it is not a bet.
Therefore, we didn't make a bet since you didn't follow through.

Such a bet represents an arrangement of trust between people and you are not trustworthy.
You haven't proven that, and I offered any arrangement you would have liked to address that gap anyway.

No sane person who reviews your behavior in regards to this investment/betting scam of yours would ever engage in a bet with you because they would never collect.
You're lying yet again. I specifically suggested mechanisms to ensure the winner would collect.

You prove over and again to be an empty incompetent windbag with nothing but baseless claims and empty cynical liberal democrat bullshit.
You're the one distracting from the main issue.

Again, you have no faith in a conservative sea-change, but you're willing to yap about it over and over again. You're a coward, and you're scrambling because someone called you out on it.

Posted by: demo kid on March 17, 2014 01:31 PM
78. To cut to the quick, I called the commission's field office in Tacoma and asked if two people betting on the outcome of a political election was illegal. "No, it isn't. People do that every day."

I asked if she could point to where in the RCW that it explains that two people making a bet is legal. The reply was that it's not necessary to address that in the RCW because two people making a bet between themselves isn't considered gambling under state law and so it isn't illegal.

If you don't believe me, call them yourselves.

Proceed with making your bet, gentlemen, that is, if Stupe the Angry Racist has the courage of his convictions, which is the real problem here.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 17, 2014 01:47 PM
79. Stupe the Angry Racist really needs to get his anger under control. That, and to quit slurring blacks by calling them "nappy-headed, jive-talking bongos". Such behavior doesn't reflect well on this site.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 17, 2014 01:52 PM
80. Too funny. Stupe the Angry Racist, who loves him some small government, is now hoping that our state government is big enough to reach its long arm into this web site to give him some help some against Demo Kid. Sorry, Stupe, but that's not gonna happen. So show some courage just once in your miserable loser life and make the damned bet.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 17, 2014 02:01 PM
81. @78: 78. To cut to the quick, I called the commission's field office in Tacoma and asked if two people betting on the outcome of a political election was illegal. "No, it isn't. People do that every day."

Awesome. Thanks!

So since it isn't illegal, what are you going to do, Amused?

@79: That, and to quit slurring blacks by calling them "nappy-headed, jive-talking bongos". Such behavior doesn't reflect well on this site.

I'd take him actually standing behind his convictions over anything else. It's more depressing to see someone who can't even own up to what they say.

Posted by: demo kid on March 17, 2014 02:02 PM
82. @80: I have to admit, though... it was fun to watch Amused try to get me arrested when he can't even read the statute properly.

Posted by: demo kid on March 17, 2014 02:06 PM
83. By the way, here's the number,

SW Region Field Office: 1-253-671-6280

"Awesome. Thanks!"

You're welcome!

"I will happily refer your gambling solicitation activity to Dan Satterburg's office."

Yes, please do call them and tell them that you're turning in Demo Kid for wanting to make a bet with you over the outcome of a political contest. But you are forewarned, they will ROFLFAO at you.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 17, 2014 02:17 PM
84. By the way, here's the number,

SW Region Field Office: 1-253-671-6280

"Awesome. Thanks!"

You're welcome!

"I will happily refer your gambling solicitation activity to Dan Satterburg's office."

Yes, please do call them and tell them that you're turning in Demo Kid for wanting to make a bet with you over the outcome of a political contest. But you are forewarned, they will ROFLFAO at you.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 17, 2014 02:18 PM
85. At # 77,

"The criminal charge here is professional gambling, and it's a gross misdemeanor, not a felony" The criminal charge here is Gambling -not professional gambling under RCW 9.46.0269. You are simply incorrect.

"Ugh. That's a definition, not a statute prohibiting gambling." Ugh indeed. The definition of gambling RCW 9.46.0237 is one of many statutes prohibiting gambling within RCW 9.46, read the law again. You are simply incorrect.

"You pretty much just answered your own question there. Investigations are handled by the Commission. I think you're out of your depth since you cannot read simple sentences."
You falsely reframed the argument and changed the subject.

"If you were to do such a thing [turn you in], they would refer you to the Gambling Commission.
Fine, then in your certainty that the prosecutor's won't enforce the gambling laws of our state, I will refer your gambling solicitation activity to the King County prosecutor's office and they will ignore it or refer it as you believe.

What difference does it make? If I am wrong, why protest? "Once again for the umpteenth time, you throw crap up in the air to avoid backing up your statements. That is a good tactic if you want to prove that you know I am correct, and if you want others to how untrustworthy you are.
You wrote, "Are you going to file?" Of course, as soon as you provide your name and address.
If you are a man of his word you will provide it in your next reply. Otherwise not.

"How about this... you talk with the Gambling Commission and provide the details of what went on here. Then, you tell me what they say. If they're eager to prosecute, then let me know and we can come to some sort of arrangement."
Backpedaling evasion.

No, especially as you wrote previously that, "you really do want me to file . . . " enough of your petty diversionary tactics. You provide your name and address, and I will file it with the King County Prosecutors office.
Besides if you are right, and you are certain how smart you are, and confident in your claims, and you have nothing to worry about . . . right?

You wrote, "I never claimed they [escrow companies taking bets] were legal. However, if the Gambling Commission is going to let little old ladies skate by with illegal games for months -- not to mention all of the illegal office betting pools! -- I don't think they're going to care about a friendly $300 wager between two people. If I started taking bets from more than just you, they might take more of an interest."
And I never claimed you claimed they were legal either asshole. This is only more pettifogging, backpedaling and excuses not to back up your words. And you may be right that they won't care. All the more reason you have nothing to lose and you can show me another thing or two . . . right?
Lets submit your name and address and I will provide them with the record and submit it.

And again if as you say, "the Prosecutor's Office is going to let little old ladies skate by" and "you don't think they're going to care about a friendly $300 wager between two people," why not back up your word big shot? What do you have to worry about?

My Q: To make a bet, and then explicitly agree that it is not binding, means it is not a bet."
Your ans: "Therefore, we didn't make a bet since you didn't follow through."
Again falsely reframing the argument, and cheap, pettifogging nonsense. I never claimed we made a bet asshole. The simple and substantive point here is that - as you prove with painful certainty here -- you could never be trusted to pay off.

I wrote "Such a bet represents an arrangement of trust between people and you are not trustworthy."
You replied, "You haven't proven that, and I offered any arrangement you would have liked to address that gap anyway.
You got one part right; you have proven you are not trustworthyby using every cheap liberal democrat tactic in the book to avoid reality and make up your own versions of it. Because you are an arrogant self assured jerk whose opinions are half-baked at best and mostly slickly posed nonsense, in your life I am certain that most people avoid you. That's why you have a dog and i doubt he trusts you either.

I wrote that, "No sane person who reviews your behavior in regards to this investment/betting scam of yours would ever engage in a bet with you because they would never collect."
You replied,"You're lying yet again. I specifically suggested mechanisms to ensure the winner would collect." You suggested an escrow company of some sort, but as I proved clearly to anyone with a brain, no escrow company can "ensure [that a] winner would collect"

My comment: "You prove over and again to be an empty incompetent windbag with nothing but baseless claims and empty cynical liberal democrat bullshit."
Your answer: "You're the one distracting from the main issue."
Your trustworthiness is the main issue and that fact that no one should trust you is central to the whole idea of entering into a ""friendly" bet with you.

"Again, you have no faith in a conservative sea-change, but you're willing to yap about it over and over again. You're a coward, and you're scrambling because someone called you out on it."

Big deal. Never yapped and I only mentioned the idea of a conservative sea-change once or twice and never as an absolute of any kind. Still it looks pretty likely to happen. Would I enter into a game of chance over it with someone like you? Why? You are untrustworthy, arrogant, and egotistical to an extreme, and vicious enough to cause problems neither of us need. As I proved there are no ways of assuring that you will not cheat and every reason to believe that you would. If you were actually "the smart son of a bitch," you claim to be, you would have backed off long ago because you are wrong on all counts and I proved it.
Proved it to your satisfaction? Nothing will ever do that short of agreeing with your arrogant liberal democrat delusions. I'm sure many do that to your face just so they don't have to deal with your inner rat-weasel.

Gotta hand it to you though . . . you are one hell of a weasel.
I find such exchanges instructive and amusing.
Thanks for your comments.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 17, 2014 03:55 PM
86. "I'd take him actually standing behind his convictions over anything else."

I'd say he has four choices - make the bet, call the prosecutor's office, shut the hell up or keep on yapping on and on and never say anything worth shit.

I'd suggest a wager on which choice Stupe will make but one of us would have to take something other than "yapping on and on...". I might take one of the other three, but we need to talk odds first.

Hey, Stupe the Angry Racist, here's another number for you to call. But do me a favor and give me time to get 10-1 on the prosecutor out of Demo Kid before you call.

King County Prosecutor's Office, Criminal Division

206-296-0191

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 17, 2014 04:20 PM
87. @85 Confused by Everything, especially how sentences work on March 17, 2014 03:55 PM,

So, I understand why you'd be afraid to wager, but shall you explain to us just what a "conservative sea-change" would be in Washington?

Republicans take the House?
Republicans maintain control of the Senate?
(un)SP front pagers post more than twice a month?

Just what is this "conservative sea-change" in 2014?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 17, 2014 04:23 PM
88. So anyways, Demo Kid, if we bet on Stupe, maybe we could agree to donate the winnings to Charity:Water. The donation pages allow you to donate anonymously and leave a message. The message left would be the confirmation. The amount donated appears there. It's a great charity. All overhead is covered by a rich donor so all of our donations go to the field to dig wells.

Why them and whose donation page? There was a little girl from the east side whose story was all over the world a couple of years ago for her selfless birthday wish to help other kids through that charity, but she died before her wish could come true. Her mom still has donation campaigns in the girl's name.

I'd suggest this as a solution for you and Stupe, but we both know he hasn't the balls to put money on his BS.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 17, 2014 04:50 PM
89. At # 87,

"shall you explain to us just what a "conservative sea-change" would be in Washington?"

It seems obvious what that would be but then I never claimed that or anything like it.
I predicted a sea change nationally and so do many liberal democrat pundits and politicians.

If you read my comments you know that I discussed how unpredictable such a thing is. Still, given the economic, health care, and international/foreign problems we face today and how they are developing by November a Republican House and Senate are quite possible.

I also admitted on that basis that I could be wrong. Any sensible honest person would do likewise which leaves liberals out. Rather than deal directly and fairly in that manner, Demokid and other liberal democrats re-framed and re-constituted my comments into the straw-man targets they find easy (in their minds)to subdue.

Thanks for the comment.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 17, 2014 05:16 PM
90. Gazootie at # 86,

A favor? Sure there buddy pal.
Demokid says he wants me to turn him in so do him the favor, get his name and address and publish it so that I can turn him in to the Prosecutor's Office.

Thanks

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 17, 2014 05:21 PM
91. @89 Confused by Everything, including his own predictions on March 17, 2014 05:16 PM,

So, you can't explain your prediction of a "conservative sea-change" beyond 'Somebody else said it, so I thought I should repeat it!'

Your analytical abilities may not be amazing, but they certainly are amusing.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 17, 2014 05:31 PM
92. At # 91,

"So, you can't explain your prediction of a "conservative sea-change" beyond 'Somebody else said it, so I thought I should repeat it!'"
That this would be your interpretation of the facts based on the available record surprises me not in the least.

Liberals like you rarely (if ever) tell the truth and usually when you do, it is because you made a mistake.
It's part of your religion.
Thanks

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 17, 2014 05:46 PM
93. The left is angry every day, all day, and all night.

Posted by: Independent Voter on March 17, 2014 05:48 PM
94. at # 93,

Quite right.

If you were successfully indoctrinated into belief in lies about everything and lived your life based on them, you would be angry all of the time too.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 17, 2014 06:26 PM
95. @92 Confused by Everything and upset he cant' understand,

Sorry, I could not parse your gibberish, but you seem to be defining "conservative sea-change" as no change in Washington. Is that right? No change in Washington in 2014? (HINT: the answer is either "yes" or "no")

And a "conservative sea-change" nationally is a one vote majority for Republicans in the US Senate? (HINT: the answer is either "yes" or "no")

Don't answer right away. Give it your best attempt at thinking and get back to us.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 17, 2014 08:24 PM
96. At # 95,

Very interesting.
And you are proud to post this comment right?

Okay by me ;>)

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 17, 2014 08:53 PM
97. The conservative sea change would be more about the leftists (Democrats in power) are malevolent liars, encourage the welfare state and want the government involved in everyone's business and to cap it off; the president uses the constitution only to wipe his butt (with all due respect).

Anyone with a shred of sanity and decency would understand this sad fact. To what extent they recognize it is up to how the loyal opposition frames the debate to reach the lowest common denominator - plenty of them out there :(

Posted by: KDS on March 17, 2014 09:34 PM
98. @85: Ugh indeed. The definition of gambling RCW 9.46.0237 is one of many statutes prohibiting gambling within RCW 9.46, read the law again. You are simply incorrect.
I don't even need to try anymore to make you look stupid. A definition does not prohibit anything. Quote me any part of RCW 9.46.0237 that does so.

You falsely reframed the argument and blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblaaaaaaaaaah...
Christ on a crutch... I read through your entire angry screed, and it's pretty obvious that:

a.) You're a complete nutcase,
b.) You're a complete nutcase that's armed and would shoot Girl Scouts,
c.) You're a complete nutcase that's armed and would shoot Girl Scouts and you're very upset with being continuously humiliated, and
d.) You're convinced that liberals are somehow dishonest, even if you've provided devastating proof of your own dishonesty with your statements.

I'll save us (and anyone still reading) some time. Here's what we can do:

1. You call the Prosecutor's Office, and tell them all about how a serious crime has been committed.
2. If the person you talk to agrees that it is a serious crime, get their name and phone number, and email it to me.
3. I will call them back, and see what my options are for a plea.

You can feel free to call them back again as proof that I called, or you can ask me for some other piece of information as proof. I am not giving my home address or my name to any deranged person that has talked about shooting people in the past.

If you do not do this, my assumption will be that you actually did call them, and they had a good laugh at your expense. However, you are more than welcome to publicly shame me if I don't follow suit.

Agreed?

You've been entertaining to humiliate, but there does come a point where your screeds just get BOOOOOOOORING.


@86. I'd say he has four choices - make the bet, call the prosecutor's office, shut the hell up or keep on yapping on and on and never say anything worth shit.
I'd bet on the last one. I'd offer money, but a sure thing is hard to bet against.


@87: So, I understand why you'd be afraid to wager, but shall you explain to us just what a "conservative sea-change" would be in Washington?
I'd expect that it's more "moving the goalposts" until November than a strict number.


@88: So anyways, Demo Kid, if we bet on Stupe, maybe we could agree to donate the winnings to Charity:Water. The donation pages allow you to donate anonymously and leave a message. The message left would be the confirmation. The amount donated appears there. It's a great charity. All overhead is covered by a rich donor so all of our donations go to the field to dig wells.
Donations sound great. Given that we know what his answer will be, though, what should we bet on?

I'd suggest this as a solution for you and Stupe, but we both know he hasn't the balls to put money on his BS.
Oh, he's consistently turned it down. No balls, indeed.

But let's break the law for a good cause. I wouldn't mind getting arrested for donating money to give people clean water.

Posted by: demo kid on March 17, 2014 10:53 PM
99. At # 98,

After writing all of that bullshit, you still don't get the point.

You proved that because your ego is so overblown and so overbears any scruples or sense of right and wrong, no one can or should ever trust you about anything.

Honesty and trustworthiness is measured best when no one is looking. Anonymity on a blog allows people to say things they might not say in interpersonal relations and it reveals character. You have revealed your character.

I could prove legal points here to a manifest certainty but you would never admit you are wrong because you don't care about the facts; only your ego. Likely (as admitted earlier) because it is small potatoes, it is unlikely that the prosecutor's office would come after you for soliciting a "grudge bet;" but that doesn't change the fact that such bets are illegal. And one of the key reasons gambling is illegal, is because so-called "gentlemen's bets" often end in violence because one party places their prideful self-image above any common ethics. Most especially "grudge bets" are pointless clown shows for contentious ego-freaks that prove nothing but the stupidity of the bettors.

The point here is one of approach.

For instance I wrote that, "No sane person who reviews your behavior in regards to this investment/betting scam of yours would ever engage in a bet with you because they would never collect." And you replied, "You're lying yet again. I specifically suggested mechanisms to ensure the winner would collect."

First, to change the subject you ignored the central issue concerning your behavior and it's relevance to bets and trust. Secondly, I proved that those mechanisms don't exist and that - except for trusting you - no assurances were (or are) available. That is not a lie on my part, but an evasion and falsehood on yours, and once again you simply moved on.

And that is the evasive lying you would use when you lost a bet to recover your pride/money.
And once you lost the bet, you would run to your liberal democrat supporters like DR. Zatidoobie, claim you won and continue on your ego freak nonsense.

And all of these distortions and "nutcase this and nutcase that" crap you come up with.
What does that supposedly accomplish?
If you are so certain and positive you are correct, why bother?

On one level I must congratulate you on your tenacity. It helps to make things clear.
Very interesting and amusing.
Thanks for your comments.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 18, 2014 10:19 AM
100. Re: all the comments between demo and amused, you both have some deep issues. Get some help.

Posted by: Mike on March 18, 2014 10:39 AM
101. @99: So you refuse to call the Prosecutor's Office then? Just wondering if proved yourself to be without balls... again.

After writing all of that bullshit, you still don't get the point.
I'm thinking that you don't actually get the point, and that it's been shown repeatedly.

You proved that because your ego is so overblown and so overbears any scruples or sense of right and wrong, no one can or should ever trust you about anything.
My ego is irrelevant. You are incorrect regardless of how I feel about myself. And you still haven't established that I don't have scruples or a sense of right or wrong (or that you do).

Honesty and trustworthiness is measured best when no one is looking. Anonymity on a blog allows people to say things they might not say in interpersonal relations and it reveals character. You have revealed your character.
And you have revealed yours -- spineless and unwilling to stand up for your beliefs.

I could prove legal points here to a manifest certainty...
You can't even tell the difference between a definition and prohibition under the law. Your ability to "prove" legal points is nonexistent.

...but you would never admit you are wrong because you don't care about the facts; only your ego.
I care very much about the facts. You don't provide very many. In fact, I would argue that your persistence even in the face of making very big mistakes (and not owning up to them!) is due to YOUR ego and your need to save face.

Likely (as admitted earlier) because it is small potatoes, it is unlikely that the prosecutor's office would come after you for soliciting a "grudge bet;" but that doesn't change the fact that such bets are illegal.
Why don't you get an opinion from a real lawyer at least? Your armchair bullshit is tedious and uninformed.

And one of the key reasons gambling is illegal, is because so-called "gentlemen's bets" often end in violence because one party places their prideful self-image above any common ethics.

I haven't given you any evidence that it would "end in violence", nor have you brought this up before. It's completely absurd. In fact, you're the only one that has preached violence in the past.

And if such a thing IS true, please feel free to link to the tidal wave of assaults and murders attributed to office sports pools.

Most especially "grudge bets" are pointless clown shows for contentious ego-freaks that prove nothing but the stupidity of the bettors.
A whole whack of InTrade investors would prove you wrong, as would Hayek and von Mises, two of conservatives' most beloved economists.

The point here is one of approach.
No, my point is that you have no idea what you talk about, and that no one should really listen to you.

First, to change the subject you ignored the central issue concerning your behavior and it's relevance to bets and trust. Secondly, I proved that those mechanisms don't exist and that - except for trusting you - no assurances were (or are) available. That is not a lie on my part, but an evasion and falsehood on yours, and once again you simply moved on.
You're just a fool. The free market is BASED on transactions between people that do not trust each other, but find mechanisms to do so anyway. I specifically offered such mechanisms here. You're providing excuses so that you don't need to own up to your lack of cojones.

And that is the evasive lying you would use when you lost a bet to recover your pride/money. And once you lost the bet, you would run to your liberal democrat supporters like DR. Zatidoobie, claim you won and continue on your ego freak nonsense.
You have no evidence of this. The only person here that is claiming that they've won when they clearly lost is you, with this argument.

And all of these distortions and "nutcase this and nutcase that" crap you come up with. What does that supposedly accomplish?
It's not "crap". You ARE a nutcase. But even if that were not true (unlikely), what does wallowing the distorted liberal stereotypes you use accomplish?

If you are so certain and positive you are correct, why bother?
Why did you just bother making so many comments to defend yourself when you don't have the balls to actually defend what you believe? This has been a pointless exchange that in the end has just shown that you have no testicles, and that you don't know anything about law, economics, politics, finance, or betting.

On one level I must congratulate you on your tenacity. It helps to make things clear.
I can't do the same. You're delusional.

Posted by: demo kid on March 18, 2014 10:47 AM
102. "I wouldn't mind getting arrested for donating money to give people clean water."

Yeah, me too. But for us to ever be arrested, we'd need a wingnut to show up with the balls to rat us out to the prosecutor. That's proving to be a little bit of a problem.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 18, 2014 11:52 AM
103. While we are on the subject of hate, Adam don't depend on hate to get you across the finish line. The Republican strategy has always been generate grassroots support by pure hatred.

Don't say what you are going to do (because truth is that you are probably going to do basically what the Democrats will - perhaps a little less to the Left, perhaps, but Leftist public policy nonetheless). No can't generate support on actually standing by the grassroots, but by promoting hate.

Well that won't work anymore.Or at least not much longer. We have seen the enemy and the enemy IS the REPUBLICAN PARTY, the REPUBLICAN Establishment.

For example you really think that blind hatred to Democrats are going to make the people of the First Congressional District support an strong Amnesty backer? Really?

With the Internet it isn't going to go unnoticed that the Republican Candidate supports lawbreaking. Especially when the campaign is going to go uber PC and bilingual. Nope, I doubt that is going to happen.

2010 didn't effect us in Washington State on the Congressional level. I doubt 2014 will have much effect as well. The Hate has turned to the Republican Establishment and it is only going to get more intense.

Posted by: Steve on March 18, 2014 12:09 PM
104. @100. Re: all the comments between demo and amused, you both have some deep issues. Get some help.
I'm just responding. He's the one that needs help with his balls.

Posted by: demo kid on March 18, 2014 04:05 PM
105. @103: Don't say what you are going to do (because truth is that you are probably going to do basically what the Democrats will - perhaps a little less to the Left, perhaps, but Leftist public policy nonetheless).

When you're on the far right, EVERYTHING is to the left of you...

Posted by: demo kid on March 18, 2014 04:08 PM
106. @104
Bullshit. You are egging him on, and continuing to beat the same dead horse in to the ground. It takes two idiots to carry on such a lame thread. You are one of the two.

Posted by: Mike on March 18, 2014 10:04 PM
107. @104
And make that three idiots for every time Dr. Steve nods in coprophagic glee.

Posted by: Mike on March 18, 2014 10:10 PM
108. "Dr. Steve nods in coprophagic glee."

Did each of you just get a new thesaurus or something?

Silly me, I thought the reason you might come back would be to explain to us why you and Adam are pissed off at Democrats for not spending $2.8 million for 40 new cameras, something you told us @53 could be done for $100,000 using $2,500 cameras. Here, allow me to refresh your memory.

"You can easily record and stream more than adequate HD video with a Prosumer Canon for about $2500. Many other state and local governments do this all the time, because that is what is within their means. Go attend a City Hall meeting and look at the cameras they have. But what would a WA Obamabot know about staying within a budget, right?"

So, Mike, got any idea where the other $2.7 million goes?

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on March 19, 2014 11:50 AM
109. The left is certainly angry, but the voters are furious.

Posted by: Independent Voter on March 19, 2014 05:16 PM
110. Dr. Steve,

I do not know why you always lump the commenters in with the blogger? I do not agree with Adam, and I believe TVW should be shut down, it is next to useless. But once again, it would not need to be run on new expensive cameras if the point was simply to provide a limited view of governance. And there is no reason why government needs new fancy cameras that for profit TV studios can afford. The minimum or second hand late models from for profit studios would be fine. And as the budget chair says, it is not a priority, so why would they need to buy or lease more expensive cameras? No argument here.

As to where the Democrats squander the rest of the millions? You would probably know better than I. Or if not, call down to Olympia. Your idols would love to hear from you.

Posted by: Mike on March 19, 2014 07:24 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?