Comment on Entry: Unions' internal memos expose harassment strategy - anti-initiative bills would make harassment easier, authored by Tim Eyman
1. What, no comments yet, Timmeh?

Don't put people in danger for exercising their constitutional rights

So now it's in the Constitution that people have a right to be paid to gather signature? Is that in the second amendment, too?
On the contrary, I don't think anyone's suggesting that volunteer signature gatherers are a problem, as that's a sign of genuine grass roots support, and all that.

But the business of referenda and signature gathering - regulating that seems to make you squeal. Worried that Mike Dunmire and his pet Timmeh might be put under a microscope? Whoo-wee, can't have that!

Thank you, though, for the email list, Timmeh - I'll get right on that with my emails of support for this necessary regulatory legislation.

Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 14, 2011 11:40 AM
2. Well, yeah, as opposed to say, unions regularly paying otherwise idle union workers to "volunteer" to work in congressional and other campaigns.

Selective and situational outrage.

Since the spending reduction initiatives regularly pass by substantial margins, the clear message to the legislature is to make do with less. Eyman has never passed an initiative. It has been as a result of a public vote.

You make a big point about "grass roots support," but fail to acknowledge the legislature's unwillingness to recognize the will of the voters in passing the spending controls.

Then again, that is consistent with the basic identifying characteristics of the left, deliberately mis-labeling what is being to the public as being "for the public."

This will continue as long as the left sees their raison d'etre as being raised spending with little or no controls, rather than what is actually good for the public.

Posted by scott158 at February 14, 2011 12:08 PM
3. MESSAGE FROM EYMAN: THIS IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE TOPIC BUT HERE GOES:

Timmeh Eyman is a flim-flam artist, selling the rubes low taxes and ponies for free - reminds me of the fool who voted for the "LOW LOW CAR TABS!! CRAZY LOW PRICES!" scam, only to realize that when he lost his car, there was no bus service to get to work, because of the interrupted revenue.
(I know, I know, all government revenue is really stolen dollars taken from wholesome old rich white people and given to freeloaders to buy crack with)
Timmeh is Mike Dunmire's poolboy, faithfully carrying out glibertarian assaults on the integrity of government, particularly imperiling its role in protecting the most vulnerable in our communities. He's convinced you fools that you can have a functioning civil society provided tax-free, fueled by pixie farts and happy thoughts of the Gipper.
He and his acolytes are a threat to our society.

Posted by Dr Liberal at February 14, 2011 12:20 PM
4. Dr Liberal has totally convinced me. I'm so glad he commented to help clear the basic issue of liberalism up. Down with common sense, hard work and being responsible for yourself and your actions.

Posted by Dan at February 14, 2011 12:27 PM
5. Dr. Liberal, can you please point out to me one instance (and I'm only asking for one so it shouldn't take much research on your part) where Mr. Eyman has advocated for a "civil society provided tax free"? I'm sure it exists because, after all, you're a doctor and know exactly what you're talking about and would never lie.

(I'll assume the pixie farts and happy thoughts of the Gipper comment was just your attempt at humor and you weren't actually being serious about that but correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe Mr. Eyman has advocated pixie farts as an alternative to taxes. Would be interesting to see under what context he issued that statement.)

Posted by WFP at February 14, 2011 12:38 PM
6. You make a big point about "grass roots support," but fail to acknowledge the legislature's unwillingness to recognize the will of the voters in passing the spending controls.

But the Initiatives reached the ballot with the help of paid signature gathering. That's not grass-roots support, that's business. We voters should know who finances for-profit signature gathering.

Glad to see you like Dr.McDermott's re-election totals, though. Or does merely voting not equal grass-roots support? Do tell.

Posted by tensor at February 14, 2011 12:39 PM
7. I wonder if the libs are ok with paid unionist harassing signature gatherers? Or should the harassers be licensed, bonded, tattooed or whether it is that they advocate for signature gatherers before they can descend upon the streets and start their harassment techniques to prevent initiatives from actually getting a vote? After-all, far be it for the public to get a chance to vote on something that the unionists disagree with. I think we can make the whole thing simpler. How about we simply run every initiative past the union goons for their approval before we start gathering signatures. I'm sure that would be the most democratic way to settle things.

Posted by Eyago at February 14, 2011 12:49 PM
8. I wonder if the libs are ok with paid unionist harassing signature gatherers?

Harassment being a crime, no one should engage in it. If the question concerns paid activity concerning gathering signatures, then yes, everyone should be regulated by the same rules. That's not what Mr. Eyeman is suggesting; he's saying that regulation of HIS part of the activity is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Please note: none of the quotes Mr. Eyeman supplied made any reference to harassment, or to any other illegal activities. Everything in those quotes referred to actions clearly protected by the First Amendment.

And therein lies Mr. Eyeman's actual problem.

EYMAN'S RESPONSE: SURE, THEY WANT PHOTOS OF SIGNATURE COLLECTORS SO THEY CAN GET TOGETHER WITH THEM FOR A BIG GROUP HUG AT THEIR HOMES. THIS ONE ESPECIALLY:

"If you see a signature gatherer, call us. We want to do all we can to stop them."

STOPPING SIGNATURE GATHERING BUT IN A PEACEFUL NON-VIOLENT WAY, SURE, THAT'S BELIEVABLE.

Posted by tensor at February 14, 2011 01:00 PM
9. Thank you Timmeh for the editorial assistance @3.

If you're going to manage this thread so closely, will you please then respond to my question @1, where I asked about the precise location in the Constitution that confers a right to be a paid signature gatherer?

SURE, IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE PRECISE LOCATION THAT ALLOWS LEGISLATORS AND THEIR STAFFS TO BE PAID

Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 14, 2011 01:09 PM
10. Please note: none of the quotes Mr. Eyeman supplied made any reference to harassment, or to any other illegal activities. Everything in those quotes referred to actions clearly protected by the First Amendment.

WRONG. Those quote indicate conspiracy to commit harassment and are illegal.

Posted by Crusader at February 14, 2011 01:25 PM
11. re 11: Would it be harrassment if the signature gatherer asks you for a signature and you tell the gatherer that you don't agree with the premise of the thing for which he is gathering signatures?

That would not be harrassment.

Posted by Porfirio Diaz - R at February 14, 2011 01:38 PM
12. WRONG. Those quote indicate conspiracy to commit harassment and are illegal.

No, the activities described are not harassment. They are all protected by the First Amendment. That is Mr. Eyeman's problem: he does not want anyone with whom he disagrees having First Amendment rights.

And, like Dr. Liberal, I must thank Mr. Eyeman for his nonconsensual addition, in this case to my comment @8. Mr. Eyeman's claim of harassment does nothing to make the described activities illegal.

Posted by tensor at February 14, 2011 01:48 PM
13. @14
I hadn't noticed that - @8 - Timmeh is making rebuttals within peoples' comments, rather than quoting? What a tool.

Even Pudgey's relentless, line-by-line, nonsensical rebuttals are more reasonable than that.

I think Timmeh is trying to make the comments of the people who defy him unreadable. Putz.

Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 14, 2011 02:03 PM
14. Typical to keep seeing the leftists focus on whether or not signature gatherers are paid and how one defines "grass roots", when the thing that gives initiatives the force of law is a vote of the electorate.

Better to ignore actual elections, which you can't completely control despite your best efforts, and rather focus out on the margins, where perhaps you can.

Whenever asked, the electorate will approve spending controls and fiscal accountability; the goal here is to limit or eliminate the opportunity to do so.

This is an effort to revive Tammany Hall union thuggery under the guise of...well actually it's naked political machinations. There is nothing subtle or civil about it.

Posted by scott158 at February 14, 2011 02:04 PM
15. Now that IS funny.

Tim starts the thread with direct quotes from union-based political action efforts and HL attempts to link TE's opposition to such efforts with "conspiracy theorist(s)."

I've rarely seen any evidence that the liberal types I regularly come in contact with have even the faintest clue that rejection of their arguments is rooted in the tortured facts and logic of their own words. There is such an intense focus on the liberal agenda that you never get around to a cogent discussion of the underlying problems.

For example, talk about health care, and it's all about government intervention and hopefully single payer health care. Discussion about governmental involvement being part of the problem blows up the conversation into a drama fest.

Talk about initiatives and their arguments center on Eyman and/or tying the hands of the legislature. Never about efficacy, efficiency, or accountability. No. Only the agenda.

Initiatives: Spend less. Accountability.

Liberals: Agenda first. Eliminate the things that thwart our efforts.

It's not that difficult to see, if you are looking.

History shows that given the choice, the electorate will vote to limit spending. That fact, to liberals, is the problem. Liberals can't attack the message, so they go after the messenger. Simple as that.

Posted by scott158 at February 14, 2011 02:30 PM
16. In the liberal world:

Harassment: Anyone gathering signatures for an Eyeman sponsored initiative.

Not Harassment: Standing outside a polling place with a billy club while wearing a black panther uniform.

Posted by mike336 at February 14, 2011 02:36 PM
17. Typical to keep seeing the leftists focus on whether or not signature gatherers are paid and how one defines "grass roots"...

Yes, we believe that citizens giving of their time and effort counts as one measure of "grass roots" efforts, whilst Michael Dunmire's paying for mercenaries does not. Your point?

MIKE DUNMIRE DIDN'T CONTRIBUTE TO I-1053

... when the thing that gives initiatives the force of law is a vote of the electorate.

Only you have claimed that "force of law" equates to "grass roots."

Tim starts the thread with direct quotes from union-based political action efforts...

All of which describe activities clearly protected by the First Amendment.


History shows that given the choice, the electorate will vote to limit spending.

Note lack of citations to actual history.

I-1053 PASSED WITH A 64% YES VOTE DESPITE BEING OUTSPENT BY UNION OPPONENTS

Posted by tensor at February 14, 2011 02:36 PM
18. Mr. Eyeman: please respond with comments of your own, and please let persons who made their points defend those points.

NO.

Also, ALL CAPS is a literary device to indicate SHOUTING, which is not a civil form of debate.

BUT I AM SHOUTING

Please note: one unsourced data point does not validate a sweeping claim.

YOU NEED MORE -- HOW 'BOUT THE PASSAGE OF I-695, I-722, I-747, I-776, I-900, I-960, I-1053, I-1107, DEFEAT OF INCOME TAX INITIATIVE 1098, ETC

Posted by tensor at February 14, 2011 03:03 PM
19. "Your point?"

I made my point as clear as a bell. The ultimate in grass roots is a vote by the electorate. Since the public has always voted, when given the opportunity, against unfettered spending by the legislature/governor, that logically trumps your incessant nattering about the gathering of signatures.

All these machinations about signature gathering and Eyman are about circumventing the will of the people.

Your incessant focus on secondary issues at the expense of the larger view provides much of the compelling arguments against your pecuniary view.

You don't persuade with your arguments; you provide ample tools to argue logically against them.

Posted by scott158 at February 14, 2011 03:05 PM
20. The ultimate in grass roots is a vote by the electorate.

Your support of Gov. Gregoire and the Democratic majorities in our state legislature is duly noted, as is your support of the majority of Washington State's Congressional delegation.

BUT I AM SHOUTING

Yeah, so we noticed. Please leave us adults to our conversation.

HOW 'BOUT THE PASSAGE of Initiatives to spend more money on education? Do you support those?

Posted by tensor at February 14, 2011 03:39 PM
21. Just more proof that Timmy is now part of the problem and ceased being a citizen availing himself of a tool after the first initiative. Why does Timmy ask you to send a letter to legislators and not run an initiative himself? Hypocritical much?

Posted by Matty at February 14, 2011 03:48 PM
22. I find Timmeh Eymans's management of this comment thread highly offensive and disrespectful to the readers who take time to engage him in debate.

I CAN DEFACE ANY COMMENTS I DON'T LIKE - STEFAN GAVE ME THE KEYS!!! AND I GET TO SHOUT, AND SHOUT DOWN ANYONE WHO SAYS BAD THINGS ABOUT ME.

I find him to be a whoring political hack dedicated to selling rubes promises of life with no taxes, whose actions have done grievous harm to this state. He has never offered an honest assessment of the effects of his glibertarian promises, nor how magical pixie farts will provide the revenue to allow the state to function with the limitations imposed by his endless, Dunmire-fueled attacks on our state.

I WILL NOT GO BACK TO SLINGING CHEAP WATCHES TO RUBES, I AM A HIGH-PROFILE POLITICAL MERCENARY JUST ASK THE SEATTLE TIMES, AND MIKE DUNMIRE.
AND I DIDNT TAKE ANY ILLEGAL MONEY THIS TIME.

And he fucks goats.

I DO NOT FUCK GOATS YOU MARXIST SCUM.

Posted by Fake Timmeh Eyman debates Dr. Liberal at February 14, 2011 03:55 PM
23. If people didn't want to have the opportunity to bring the initiative issues to a vote they would not sign the petitions. The very fact that an initiative qualifies with enough signatures shows that the issue at hand was important. In this day and age it is impractical to expect people to gather all the necessary signatures while being unpaid or worse, having to take time off their jobs. How does the average person compete with paid lobbyists, paid government staff and paid union personnel who continually try to get laws passed for there own benefit? The answer is, the initiative and referendum rights. I thank Tim and others who pursue those rights to provide a much needed check on runaway legislatures. I can sure understand how that bugs the hell out of those who would stifle popular rule of law.

Posted by shaydo at February 14, 2011 04:00 PM
24. Sorry grammar nazis, I put the wrong there there.

Posted by s at February 14, 2011 04:04 PM
25. Hey kids, wanna come over to our house and play?

http://horsesass.org/?p=32637

We're discussing:

The PIC presented it�s report to the state legislature, warning that initiative process was being �hijacked�.

and

compulsive liar and hustling self-promoter.

GOOD TIMES!

Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 14, 2011 04:12 PM
26. Let's see...the resident liberals are trying to take away good paying jobs as usual, the unions are peeved because the legislature hasn't made a law requiring all signature gatherers to join their union....and then there are a bunch of people who think it's so important to register and license signature gatherers that we can't question the proposed legislation.

Maybe those dems in the legislature should first require registration and licensing of all email spammers doing business within this state including their home addresses, we could solve the budget problems. That would seem to be a better use of their request to license and register people.

Posted by doug at February 14, 2011 06:26 PM
27. How would these unions feel if people were out strategizing to harm them the way they openly plot to harm others? Inexcusable.

Posted by Monterey at February 14, 2011 06:37 PM
28. To quote 1776: "I've never seen, heard, nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yes, I'm for debating anything!"

Dr. Liberal:

Why is it so important to prevent an issue from getting on the ballot? Why are you so afraid of the people?

Posted by Cicero at February 14, 2011 07:59 PM
29. Ah, Tim Eyman, he is only in favor of Free Speech if it is his own. You dare oppose him, and you are committing harassment.

Who knew that Washington State now has royalty that cannot be question. All Hail Emperor Eyman, who never has to be responsible for his actions or his lies. All Hail!

FAR FROM IT, THE HARASSMENT OF PEOPLE COLLECTING SIGNATURES APPLIES TO ANY INITIATIVE ON ANY TOPIC, INCLUDING YOUR INCOME TAX INITIATIVE. VOTERS HATED IT AND REJECTED IT BUT NO ONE COLLECTING SIGNATURES FOR IT DESERVED TO BE HARASSED FOR EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE. THESE LAWS TO FACILITATE HARASSMENT WILL HURT EVERYONE, NOT JUST FOLKS WHO LIVE IN MUKILTEO.

Posted by JDB at February 15, 2011 10:14 AM
30. Ah I see the liberal trolls are in good form. At least these aren't unleashing their pent-up racism, they are just keeping it bottled up for now.
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/02/leftist-racists-attack-herman-cain-they-always-need-a-monkey-in-the-window/
Headless: Since you continue to refuse to apologize for all liberals for their racist remarks, does that mean you condone this racist behavior by liberals?

Posted by mike336 at February 15, 2011 11:31 AM
31. So aren't the paid signature gatherers considered employees of a private organization? Wouldn't this be the equivalent of forcing Walmart employees to get a license to work at Walmart and to list their home address and photo for public information requests.

Aren't there any precedents/laws protecting employers and employees from this kind of regulation? It seems like this is a bit onerous.

Posted by blindman at February 15, 2011 11:49 AM
32. I agree that it is the Public Employee Unions that must be reigned in for the sake of the future of our country and fiscal sanity. It may not be too much of a stretch to refer to these Union thugs as monetary jihadists.

The current administration has happily let these unions get out of control because of payback for their support. A few good governors like Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty are fighting back with fiscal sanity against the wannabe jihadists from the unions. There are numerous examples that can be cited if the resident trolls/leftists like.

Posted by KDS at February 15, 2011 12:02 PM
33. Just another reason to kill all unions ...worthless commie progressives

Posted by hellpig at February 15, 2011 12:45 PM
34. It is interesting how similar the Leftist Bloggers on this thread are to Chauncey DeVega!!

Leftist Blogger Dismisses Black Conservative, CPAC Speaker Herman Cain As 'Minstrel'

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/02/15/leftist-blogger-dismisses-black-conservative-cpac-speaker-herman-cain-

Posted by Tim at February 15, 2011 02:37 PM
35. The best point on here: Eyman has NEVER passed an initiative, merely put it on the ballot and ALL VOTERS had a chance to vote for or against. I would say that shows grass roots support. It is better than our Democrat led government passing bills without hearings and not taking the time to listen to their constituents remarks. Dr. Liberal, show me in the constitution where it says anything about NOT being a paid signature gatherer, are you suggesting we now regulate what someone can and cannot gain employment as? Typical Liberal, wants to get in everyones business.

Posted by Al at February 15, 2011 02:47 PM
36. First off, the initiative process is important and I agree with many of the Eyman's initiative's.

Second, Use of this site is a bit overboard by him. He's so demonized locally it's time for another to come forward. Eyman could put support initiatives to legalize weed and gay marriage and they'd get voted down simply because his name is on them.

THEN PLEASE EXPLAIN 64% OF VOTERS APPROVING I-1053 AND 71% OF MUKILTEO VOTERS APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF RED-LIGHT CAMERAS.

How peace/love/happiness=hate must be a PNW phenomenon.

Chicago has nothing on this state's politics. One place you have "open-minded" communists and more-or-less owned puppets.

How this gov't decides to ban or limit the taxes (sin)they depend on and expect to survive/hire is beyond me. It's a pay-to-play state, who cares about paid signature gathers with no privacy when the felons and dead can vote.

Posted by Marx at February 15, 2011 07:50 PM
37. The best point on here: Eyman has NEVER passed an initiative, merely put it on the ballot and ALL VOTERS had a chance to vote for or against. I would say that shows grass roots support. It is better than our Democrat led government passing bills without hearings and not taking the time to listen to their constituents remarks.

So, voting for an Initiative = grass-roots support!!1!

Voting for a Democrat = so totally NOT grass-roots support!!1!

I LOVED THAT GOAT AND HE LOVES ME!

Shut up, already, willya?

Posted by tensor at February 15, 2011 10:03 PM
38. And tensor is wrong again!!

Posted by Tim at February 15, 2011 11:52 PM
39. Alright everyone make sure you keep your goats away from tensor. So how long have you had this bestiality problem tensor?

Posted by mike336 at February 16, 2011 07:14 AM
40. This kind of harassment is the type of thing that really opened my eyes and solidified my from a Democrat voter to anything else but Democrat. One day my brother-in-law, who is very conservative, just mentioned that he's sign any initiative regardless whether he supported it or not because he wanted it put before the people. Putting the initiative on the ballot was just part of the process of government by the people for the people.

Then along came Iman and this harassment of signature gatherers. This has completely turned me against liberals and Democrats and their support groups (you could call me a reliable Democrat voter up until about that time. This kind of behavior is a willing wrench tossed into the machine of Representative Democracy. It's foul, subversive, anti-democratic and an exclusive purview of the left.

Posted by G Jiggy at February 16, 2011 04:37 PM
41. Today's Democratics (specifically liberal progressives) have to resort to manipulation, coercion (by the unions to bribe their people) and snake oil sales tactics to sell their agenda. They cannot afford to be truthful about it because they know that wouldn't sell.

Unions are the enemy and the rest of us are counting on our elected leaders to draw a line in the sand and stand up against the union thugs.
That is the only hope in saving our financial house from collapse.

Furthermore, any leader that willfully refuses to cut spending or reign in union thugocracy is IMMORAL. They are penalizing future generations that are defenseless in this matter.

Posted by KDS at February 17, 2011 12:18 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?