Comment on Entry: Senate Democrats Feign Bipartisanship, authored by pudge
1. "Sen. Tim Sheldon, D-Potlatch"

Sheldon didn't run on conferencing with wingnuts. In other words, he got my vote through lies of ommission. Pudge obviously cottons to liars when the lies suit his political agenda. I don't.

Posted by Doctor Steve at January 15, 2013 09:26 AM
2. No, you cannot take Democrats seriously. They are not interested in solving problems, and instead only expanding the state.

Posted by Leftover at January 15, 2013 10:24 AM
3. "Doctor" Steve - you obviously have not followed Tim Sheldon's career in the legislature. He has been a moderate and has often voted in a true bi-partisan manner. He has not always agreed with the Democrat leadership.

For you to be unaware of this shows your ignorance.

Posted by SouthernRoots at January 15, 2013 11:29 AM
4. Steve: Sheldon didn't run on conferencing with wingnuts. In other words, he got my vote through lies of ommission. Pudge obviously cottons to liars when the lies suit his political agenda.

I don't know what he did or didn't run on. And I doubt you do, either, frankly. But my best guess is that he campaigned on fiscal responsibility, which necessarily means he will side with the Republicans moreso than the Democrats on fiscal issues.


I don't.

Then you will, obviously, not favor Senator Keiser being in leadership of the Democrats. I await your denunciation of her.

Posted by pudge at January 15, 2013 11:36 AM
5. "you obviously have not followed Tim Sheldon's career in the legislature"

You obviously don't know much, do you? I've lived in Mason County for 22 years, the same length of time Sheldon's had a political career. I grew tired of him a long time ago. Did you know that he's also Mason County commissioner? Between the two gigs, he's pulling down over $120K a year. Did you know that even as the responsibilities of commissioner have dwindled, the pay has soared. It's gone from $20K to over $70K. Little wonder he prized that one. A career politician with his snout stuck in the public trough. I thought you wingnuts hated that stuff? I reckon not.

Don't worry about being wrong again. You've got company in Pudge.

"he will side with the Republicans moreso"

And that's remotely equal to conferencing with them how?

"I don't know what he did or didn't run on."

As someone who received and read his campaign literature and who has followed his political career for a couple of decades, I do. Pudge, he did not campaign on conferencing with the Republicans. And to give you a clue, that's a little bit different than just voting with them now and then.

"And I doubt you do, either, frankly."

You're wrong about most things, Pudge. Don't fret. This is just one more.

Posted by Doctor Steve at January 15, 2013 12:00 PM
6. Steve: You're wrong about most things, Pudge.

One example, please.

Just one.

Posted by pudge at January 15, 2013 12:23 PM
7. Steve -

I've lived in Mason County for 22 years, the same length of time Sheldon's had a political career. I grew tired of him a long time ago.

... he got my vote through lies of omission.

Yet you still vote for him. I would have thought that you would work hard against him and get a far more dogmatic liberal to replace him.

Posted by SouthernRoots at January 15, 2013 12:24 PM
8. ... he got my vote through lies of omission.

It seems that many Democrats are elected to office through "lies of omission".

Posted by SouthernRoots at January 15, 2013 12:26 PM
9. Perhaps, Sheldon was looking to the future and saw a $900 million dollar shortfall coupled with a "need" to increase school funding by about a billion dollars and decided that the Democrat leadership on this would not get desirable results.

Posted by SouthernRoots at January 15, 2013 12:55 PM
10. @ 13 How should we define "moderate" these days? Slightly left of Mussolini?

Far right of Obama.

Posted by SouthernRoots at January 15, 2013 02:34 PM
11. So "Doctor" Steve, you vote for the party, not the candidate? Because Tim Sheldon is acting consistently with the campaign statements he made. He's one of the few politicians who puts the State ahead of party politics.

Posted by Shanghai Dan at January 15, 2013 03:51 PM
12. Steve: You're wrong about most things, Pudge.

One example, please.

Just one.
Posted by pudge at January 15, 2013 12:23 PM

He is incapable of doing so truthfully, with the exception of predicting Romney would win in November.

I would vote for Sheldon every time if he was in my district, because unlike the resident leftist scoundrels, I vote for the best candidate not lockstep with the pro-slavery statist party aka the Democrats.

Posted by KDS at January 15, 2013 05:53 PM
13. "One example please"
Say what! Did you not Pudge predict in early 2009 that Obama was going to implement a DC style gun law? Four years went by, and even now, Obama is being drugged by the heels of the left to implement something in light of Newton. Further, you infer on your site that Feinstein is planning to take away your (and everyone's) guns. When it comes to gun control items, Pudge, you are overblown and not calling it straight. Are you on the gun manufacturer's payroll to scare up citizens, like the NRA is? (On the last part, please refer to the amount of money the gun manufacturers have paid the NRA, who now is more beholden to them than their members.)

Posted by tc at January 16, 2013 07:57 AM
14. tc: Say what!

You seem to think I implied I am never wrong. I did not imply that.


Did you not Pudge predict in early 2009 that Obama was going to implement a DC style gun law?

I did not, no. You're completely making it up. I did point out the fact that Obama was hostile to gun rights (which was obviously true from his record and statements of the past), and that he said he wanted a new assault weapons ban (which was right there on his own web site, until he got criticism and took it down).

So I am looking at my posts of early 2009, and I see nothing that even comes close, although I did find a gem of a quote from Arne Duncan who lied about the "undeniable fact that guns and kids don't mix." I saw a great youth rifle competition just last Saturday.

I did say that Obama favored the actual DC gun ban, of course. But that is easy, since he said he favored it and his administration defended it.

In late 2008, I also said that, "Obama is going to be the most anti-gun President in history, if he follows through on his stated views, his voting history, and so on." But that was a conditional; he clearly hasn't followed through with his stated views and voting history, to this point.

Give it 20 minutes.


Further, you infer on your site that Feinstein is planning to take away your (and everyone's) guns.

No, again, I did no such thing. In fact, I said the opposite: "So she won't take your gun away ... but she will try to force you to license it with the federal government."

I don't know where you come up with these gross misrepresentations, but I suggest you cease.


When it comes to gun control items, Pudge, you are overblown and not calling it straight.

One example. Actually cite and quote it next time, perhaps?


Are you on the gun manufacturer's payroll to scare up citizens ...

I hope you realize how foolish you look, when you can't even come up with a single thing I've said that isn't true, and the two you did come up with didn't at all reflect anything I've ever said.


... like the NRA is? (On the last part, please refer to the amount of money the gun manufacturers have paid the NRA, who now is more beholden to them than their members.)

You don't know what you are talking about. The NRA is a membership organization, and the gun manufacturers, while they can donate, do not get a vote. They are beholden to their voting members, first and foremost (and obviously, if you know anything about organizations like this). The members elect the board, who elect the President.

Yes, the gun manufacturers have influence, and ... so what? Good for them. The NRA has always served the interests of people who want our right to keep and bear arms protected, and that obviously includes most gun manufacturers. You say that like it is a bad thing.

And by the way, you also might have missed in the past when I've come out to criticize attempts to falsely scare citizens about guns. For example, when WND was trying to raise money by saying that the Congress was trying to ban guns, citing a bill that never got a hearing and had only one sponsor (Obama's buddy Bobby Rush, D-IL), I pointed out that it was dishonest, I wrote to WND telling them they will never get my money, and I made sure any friend who mentioned it received a correction.

You will not find any evidence of me fearmongering over guns, at least, not by stretching any facts. I think fear is reasonable, given Obama's anti-gun tendencies and his view that the government is not bound by the rule of law, especially in regards to the Second Amendment. But I always stick to the facts.

I suggest, again, that you do the same.

Posted by pudge at January 16, 2013 08:18 AM
15. Pudge,
Since you asked on your other two posts, I will respond to your comment @14

For Reference:
Ref A: Your SP Post of Jan 20, 2009
Civil Liberties to be lost
Ref B: Your Own blog post of Dec 19, 2012
Get Ready for Big Sister

In Ref A, Body of Post, you state:
" He also has declared himself, time and again, completely hostile toward the Second Amendment (despite his dishonest rhetorical claims that he believes gun ownership is an "individual right")."

In Ref A,Comment 30, you state:
"...What I said -- what Barack Obama did not understand, when his policy (also the policy of Holder and Emanuel) was slapped down in DC v. Heller -- is that a TOTAL GUN BAN is not Constitutional, yes, REGARDLESS of your so-called "public safety" claims...."

later in same comment, you state:
"...Yes, but Obama's policy, as implemented in DC v. Heller, did not do the former (or the latter, but that's another discussion)...."

In Ref A, my comment @39, I respond to those two items and state:
"You go on to state that Obama's policy was "slapped" down. Incorrect. It was the DC Policy. Obama didn't write it, nor have any input into it. Obama may have agreed with most, or even all of it, but that doesn't make it his policy, as you stated. It still is the DC policy. Just for giggles and grins, however, where exactly did Obama state such a claim that he was in 100% agreement with the DC ban?

For example, in the April 16th Debate with Hillary, Obama was asked by Chalie Gibson about the DC Ban. Here is a link to the transcript. The question and response is towards the end. I have read it and I find it stating what I had previously stated (i.e., that Obama agrees that gun ownership is a personal right and that there is room in the 2nd Amendment for communities to control the usage of said right). The DC Court decision did through out DC's specific law, but did it address the general question in the second part. It has allowed certain restrictions to remain. So for you, what restrictions can be proposed and what are out of bounds, in your mind? For example, can community's ban possession of a handgun in a public facility or on public property?

You state that Obama is no the record many, many times for supporting out right bans. I don't believe you on this statement. You will need to prove this to me. You see, you want to read into Obama's statements thoughts and words that are not there. Obama is and has always been nuanced in responses. This is why you just don't get him, nor his responses. You don't appear to see gray. You seem to be an either/or person. Obama is not. Obama is a concensus maker and pragmatist. If you actually looked at his history, he tries to find the middle ground that satisfies the most common goals of both sides. It did not surpise me one bit when he picks a mostly Centralist cabinet. Obama is not an idealog (sp?) that you and others make him out to be."

The rest of the conversation thread on the post between you and me was relating to Health Care and not guns.

It is from this post and the back and forth comments that I base my statement in comment 13 of this post:
"Did you not Pudge predict in early 2009 that Obama was going to implement a DC style gun law?"

You said through your comments (not direct words, but implied) back then in regards to the second amendment liberty loss that your belief was Obama's approach to Gun Control was to implement the same policy as DC. If you thought he was going to implement some other policy, then you should have stated at the time. The policy you went back to on several comment threads was the DC Gun policy that was overturned by the Supreme Court.

In regards to Ref B (Feinstien), my comment in @14 above was:
" Further, you infer on your site that Feinstein is planning to take away your (and everyone's) guns."

I was not correct, in checking the text again. What you actually said was:
"So she won't take your gun away ... but she will try to force you to license it with the federal government. Part of the reason to have a rifle is to protect yourself from government, should that ever become necessary. Registering it with the government kinda defeats the purpose. "

So clarification on my comment @13, your headline and lead to the section I quote, and your use of the line "So she wont take your gun away" leads to the inferred threat that maybe she will take away your guns. Then with the quoted statement you back off the lead-up. So, on technicality, I rescind this part of the comment @13. I don't see the sense of the lead-up to that quote, though. Why even mention taking away guns, if that wasn't what Feinstein was talking about? Why throw that out there? I won't guess at your reason for doing so. I do know in the political world, the purpose of such a statement is to plant the idea in peoples mind that this is Feinstein's end-goal, which you did in mind after first reading of your post. It was only in subsequent reading to respond to your comment @14, here, that I realized you threw away the build-up.

On NRA Funding:
Here is a Forbes article discussing where NRA gets its money. While over half is through membership, a significant amount is through grants and donations. The linked document does not go into where the contributions come from, but it has been separately reported the large contributions that the gun industry has made to the organization.

Posted by tc at January 17, 2013 01:04 PM
16. tc: you made several false claims about me.

1. "Did you not Pudge predict in early 2009 that Obama was going to implement a DC style gun law?"

2. "Further, you infer on your site that Feinstein is planning to take away your (and everyone's) guns."

3. "When it comes to gun control items, Pudge, you are overblown and not calling it straight."


I will not address your attempts to back up the third claim until you back up the other two, because it will require me to do some research to provide evidence that I am not, as you claim, "overblown and not calling it straight." And I won't bother doing that if you won't back up the other false claims that do not require such work on my part.


You said through your comments (not direct words, but implied) back then in regards to the second amendment liberty loss that your belief was Obama's approach to Gun Control was to implement the same policy as DC.

Seriously, why do you insist on just lying so much? There is zero truth to this claim, and zero evidence to support it. You provided no evidence, at all, that I predicted Obama would try to implement a DC-style gun law.


I was not correct, in checking the text again.

So you admit you were wrong.

Now, all you have to do is back up the first claim, or admit you were wrong about that, too, and then I will consider your comments on the third claim.


So clarification on my comment @13, your headline and lead to the section I quote, and your use of the line "So she wont take your gun away" leads to the inferred threat that maybe she will take away your guns.

Dude. You suck at lying. Really. You are actually claiming that when I say she *won't* take your guns away, that I am actually saying she *might* take your guns away. You are completely full of it. And now you have one more thing to back up, or retract.


Here is a Forbes article discussing where NRA gets its money.

Please learn to read. My explicit point is that it does not matter where the money comes from, that the members still hold all the power, since the members elect the board, which elects the President. Your claim was "the NRA ... is more beholden to [gun manufacturers] than their members." But because the members choose the leadership of the NRA, you are actually claiming that the members of the NRA are more beholden to gun manufacturers than themselves. You made a stupid and ill-informed statement.

Posted by pudge at January 17, 2013 01:22 PM
17. Pudge@16
I provided the evidence for my first point. I don't care if you can't read what you wrote in 2009 or care to disregard what you wrote. I simply don't care what you think. The point was what you stated in 2009 was that Obama was going to take away our civil liberties and when I questioned what you meant in the comments section, you specifically pointed to Obama's past statements about the DC gun policy. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots. You felt that Obama's past stance on the DC Gun Ban was the policy he was going to implement and not as I pointed out what he actually campaigned on nor what he expanded upon in the debate (my link to the debate transcript). Obama didn't say he wanted to implement the DC Gun ban, but you kept on bringing it up in the comments as your proof as to that is what Obama wanted to do. Those our your words in the comments of the post. You have to live with the prediction you made about Obama limiting civil liberties.

OBTW, he also didn't ask for a single payer system, or do you still believe that is his intent (rest of comment thread after the section I quoted).

Posted by tc at January 17, 2013 01:57 PM
18. tc: I provided the evidence for my first point.

You're lying. Your "evidence" amounts to saying some comments implied it. But while you quoted some comments, but you did not explain how those comments -- or any others -- implied it. And since you yourself admit I didn't actually say what you claim, you have to explain how it was implied.

Of course, you can't, which is why you didn't try to. You know you're lying.


I don't care if you can't read what you wrote in 2009 or care to disregard what you wrote.

Don't be a jerk. You're trying to put your failure to prove your claim on me, and no one will buy it. And it's funny, because back in that discussion, you also lied about me implying things I didn't. Are you really this stupid? Maybe you're not a liar, maybe you're just an idiot.


The point was what you stated in 2009 was that Obama was going to take away our civil liberties and when I questioned what you meant in the comments section, you specifically pointed to Obama's past statements about the DC gun policy.

You're lying. I said Obama is hostile to the Second Amendment, which is obviously true, as evidenced by his favor of a DC gun ban. That is all I said about it: that it was evidence of his hostility toward the Second Amendment. This part of the discussion was not about what liberties he was trying to strip, but about whether he was hostile toward the Second Amendment.


You felt that Obama's past stance on the DC Gun Ban was the policy he was going to implement

You're a liar. I never did.


you kept on bringing it up in the comments as your proof as to that is what Obama wanted to do.

You're a liar. I never did.


Those our your words in the comments of the post.

You're a liar, and you even admitted my words didn't actually say that. So you already admitted this is a lie.


You have to live with the prediction you made about Obama limiting civil liberties.

What prediction? You didn't actually quote me making one. Because you're a liar.


OBTW, he also didn't ask for a single payer system, or do you still believe that is his intent (rest of comment thread after the section I quoted).

Of course that's his goal.


tc, you have one last chance to fix your lies.

Posted by pudge at January 17, 2013 02:23 PM
19. Pudge @18
"This part of the discussion was not about what liberties he was trying to strip, but about whether he was hostile toward the Second Amendment."

This is absolutely false. The point of the 2009 MLK post of yours was to discuss what liberties Obama was going to take away. To claim otherwise makes you out to be a liar (your definition).

Posted by tc at January 17, 2013 04:25 PM
20. Pudge,
Further I am finished with this discussion. Adios!

Posted by tc at January 17, 2013 04:27 PM
21. "Steve: You're wrong about most things, Pudge.

One example, please.

Just one."

After Dino Rossi conceded the governor's race in 2008 you said:

"Say hello to much, much, much higher taxes in the near future."

I'm not aware of appreciably higher taxes originating from Olympia and signed into law by the Governor subsequent to any point in time from the re-election of Christine Gregoire.

Posted by YLB at January 17, 2013 04:28 PM
22. I'm not aware of appreciably higher taxes originating from Olympia and signed into law by the Governor subsequent to any point in time from the re-election of Christine Gregoire.
Posted by YLB at January 17, 2013 04:28 PM

It doesn't matter what you are or aren't aware of. Demonstrate it by showing the actual numbers, otherwise I and others will remain skeptical of your claim. Don't forget that school levies can also count - a tax is a tax and if it occurred since the beginning of Gregoire's 2nd term, it counts as a tax increase by your definition. So, show us the numbers or withdraw your contention !

Posted by KDS at January 17, 2013 06:10 PM
23. tc: "This part of the discussion was not about what liberties he was trying to strip, but about whether he was hostile toward the Second Amendment."

This is absolutely false. The point of the 2009 MLK post of yours was to discuss what liberties Obama was going to take away.

You're just a terrible liar, tc. Yes, the point of the post was that. But THAT SPECIFIC POINT I made was to defend my claim that he was hostile to the Second Amendment. That could not be more clear.

You're just a liar.


Further I am finished with this discussion. Adios!

Not just this one.

Posted by pudge at January 17, 2013 06:42 PM
24. YLB: I'm not aware of appreciably higher taxes originating from Olympia and signed into law by the Governor subsequent to any point in time from the re-election of Christine Gregoire.

Yes, it is true that Tim Eyman proved me wrong by stopping Gregoire and the Democrats from raising taxes.

Posted by pudge at January 17, 2013 06:44 PM
25. As usual, there were unintended consequences from Eyman not raising taxes.

Do user fees for recreational permits (i.e. state parks, sno-park, etc.) count as higher taxes ? Those have risen since 2009. A higher unemployment rate and higher user fees are just examples of unintended consequences from no rise in taxes since 2009. The politicians have the upper hand because they can manipulate compensation in other areas of government in place of no tax increases.

Posted by KDS at January 17, 2013 07:03 PM
26. The first sentence should have read "by Tim Eyman stopping Gregoire and the Democrats from raising taxes"

Posted by KDS at January 17, 2013 07:05 PM
27. "It doesn't matter what you are or aren't aware of. Demonstrate it by showing the actual numbers,"

Demonstrate it yourself.. Pudge conceded that he was wrong..

Now prove Pudge was wrong about being proved wrong.

Posted by YLB at January 17, 2013 07:58 PM
28. "Do user fees for recreational permits (i.e. state parks, sno-park, etc.) count as higher taxes ?"

Ronald Reagan thought user fees were the ideal form of government revenue raising..

Here's an article that speaks to that:

http://gazettextra.com/news/2007/nov/27/returning-concept-user-fees/

From Ryan country no less. In any case these user fees for rec permits were hardly indicative of "much, much, much higher taxes" - in the "near" or any other future.

Posted by YLB at January 17, 2013 08:09 PM
29. Toll roads - roads for which you've already paid - are USER taxes.

As are onerous gas taxes, taxes on the electricity and natural gas we buy, telephone taxes, cigarette and liquor taxes.

They may be called fees or funds or whatever other the implementing liar may call them, but the end result is they take EARNED money out of the hands of the earner and put it in the hands of the non-producing state.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 17, 2013 08:19 PM
30. Demonstrate it yourself.. Pudge conceded that he was wrong..

Now prove Pudge was wrong about being proved wrong.
Posted by YLB at January 17, 2013 07:58 PM

Shrug. The fact that I was conveying was that user fees are taxes and revenues ! So, Rags is correct and you conveyed a half-truth.

Posted by KDS at January 17, 2013 09:22 PM
31. "As are onerous gas taxes,"

Ronald Reagan, in Jan 1983, rose taxes on gasoline for the first time in over 20 years..

He called it a "user fee"..

http://transportationnation.org/2012/02/09/gop-house-works-to-undo-reagan-legacy-on-transportation/

To people back in 1983 this meant a cost of approx $30/year for a typical motorist and $1000/year for a trucker.

Was Ronald Reagan an "implementing liar"?

Posted by YLB at January 17, 2013 10:52 PM
32. "The fact that I was conveying was that user fees are taxes and revenues"

And you conveniently leave out the fact that you requested that I prove something that was on the face true and Pudge conceded that it was true.

Posted by YLB at January 17, 2013 11:02 PM
33. "Toll roads - roads for which you've already paid - are USER taxes."

I could be wrong but the new span across the Tacoma Narrows is not paid for.. I assume bonds were floated for it and the tolls are used to service the debt and cover any maintenance.

Once the bonds are paid I suppose any tolls collected will be used to cover maintenance or like in the case of the original 520 bridge will be discarded with altogether.

I doubt Ronald Reagan would have a problem with the tolls collected for the new Tacoma Narrows span or even the new SR 520 bridge.

Posted by YLB at January 17, 2013 11:12 PM
34. Enough of the Ronald Reagan canard - I believe he would have a problem here with collecting the tolls after the bridge is paid for and more importantly with the size of Government in this state, let alone the size of the Federal Government. I would be surprised if the tolls on the new 520 bridge are ever discontinued.

No one will ever know what Ronald Reagan really thought. Similar to what would Jesus do ?

Posted by KDS at January 18, 2013 09:30 AM
35. "No one will ever know what Ronald Reagan really thought."

So was he lying when he speechified about user fees?

Whatever..

Posted by YLB at January 18, 2013 04:04 PM
36. YLB: Yes, whatever. Provide an example of Mr. Reagan speaking about user fees. He allowed overspending by congress during his two terms, but I question if you even know what you are talking about.

Do you think we have a revenue problem or a spending problem ? (I bet I know what you won't say).

Posted by KDS at January 21, 2013 10:12 PM
37. The online store online sale: chan luu,uggWebsite:www.chanluugirls.jp,www.ugginjp.org

Posted by chan luu at January 22, 2013 01:45 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?