Amber Gunn from the EFF wrote this piece on the trouble Gregoire and her cohorts in the legislature have gotten us in. Rather than solve our budget problems, they put them by accepting billions in stimulus funds, the acceptance of which creates even more problems.
Posted by pudge at October 19, 2009 01:04 PM | Email ThisIs there another "biennium" involved here? I believe the state's biennial budget goes from July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2011; so it doesn't appear to be that biennium.
Posted by: Micajah on October 19, 2009 08:24 PM■$68 million for "non-citizen pregnant women" ■$32 million for "undocumented kids to 300% FPL" (FPL=Federal Poverty Level; See Cover All Kids debacle) ■$13 million "SCHIP kids 200-300% FPL"Ahem. Why are we still funding these things?
I'll second that opinion. If you can't afford children, you shouldn't be having them. If you can't get in line and enter this country legally, take your sorry carcass back to your country of origin and go through the legal process of immigrating to this country. We need to crack down on this nonsense post haste.
Did pudge make you stand in the corner as part of his program for encouraging dissent?
Posted by: scottd on October 20, 2009 05:58 PMJensen will not be back for a long time ... if ever.
BTW, what was so offensive about John pointing out that SCHIP doesn't grant benefits to illegal aliens?
Posted by: scottd on October 20, 2009 06:38 PMNo disagreement there. If pudge wants to crab about Obama hating dissent on one thread while deleting comments from people he doesn't like on another, who's to stop him? Nothing ironic about that!
Posted by: scottd on October 20, 2009 09:17 PMIf you are implying I am deleting comments BECAUSE I don't like those people, then no, I never did that. Not once. You're making that up.
we just have your word on the lying
False. I did not delete his comments that existed leading up to my decision to ban him. Everyone can decide for themselves. I don't know which discussion it was, so you'd have to find it, but it's all there.
I'm betting there was a little more dissent than you could handle
Shrug. You lose.
No, I meant you are deleting comments you don't like from people who disagree with you. Hope that clears things up.
Posted by: scottd on October 20, 2009 11:14 PMSo you're actually not saying anything at all.
I obviously would not delete a comment I *did* like, or one that I *agreed* with.
But as I never delete a comment *because* I dislike it, or *because* I disagree with it, you're not actually making a point at all.
So yes, you did clear things up: you have no point. Noted!
Of course you have other "reasons" for doing this -- in my experience censors usually rationalize their acts. One of the most common rationalizations is claiming that the censored material was a lie or from an unreliable source. It shows a lack of confidence that others can judge for themselves the strength or veracity of opposing arguments. Your response to this is to play tiresome semantic games. Sad.
Posted by: scottd on October 21, 2009 07:55 AMAgain, I am deleting comments because of WHO is posting them, not because of WHAT is in them. As noted, I am not even reading Jensen's comments, so you are lying by saying I am deleting the comments because of their content.
Of course you have other "reasons" for doing this
You're lying. By saying I have "other" reasons, you are necessarily implying that the fact that I dislike the comments is a reason. This is a lie. I have only ONE reason: the people were lying or abusive and have been banned for that. No other reason, period.
in my experience censors usually rationalize their acts
I am not censoring anything. I am banning people. There's a difference, obviously.
It shows a lack of confidence ...
Nonsense. It shows that I feel their "contributions" are hurting the discussion. They are free to post their idiocies on the "Public Blog." I am not seeking to prevent them from speaking, just keeping them away from my discussions, where they have proven themselves incapable of playing well with others.
... that others can judge for themselves the strength or veracity of opposing arguments.
You're lying again. As I already told you, I did not delete the comments that contained the lies; those remained for people to judge for themselves.
No more lies from you, scottd. And no more warnings.
You're lying. By saying I have "other" reasons, you are necessarily implying that the fact that I dislike the comments is a reason. This is a lie. I have only ONE reason: the people were lying or abusive and have been banned for that. No other reason, period.
No pudge, I'm not necessarily implying that. I'm considering that you dislike a comment as a possible reason, but I didn't claim that it was your motivation -- how would I know? You have said that you delete the comments because you have banned the person. That is another reason, one that you have that is different from the one I suggested. What I said was true -- to call it a lie, you have to add something to it that I did not say.
I am not censoring anything. I am banning people. There's a difference, obviously.
Of course there is...
... that others can judge for themselves the strength or veracity of opposing arguments.
You're lying again. As I already told you, I did not delete the comments that contained the lies; those remained for people to judge for themselves.
Once again, you're distorting what I said so you can find a lie in it. I didn't claim that you deleted any specific comments containing "the lies". (Here, I assume you are referring to specific comments leading to Jensen's ban.) My full statement referred to censoring (ie, deleting) material that one claims is a lie or from an unreliable source. You say you banned Jensen because he lies -- I think that's covered in the second half of what I said.
So, ban me if you like, pudge. It says more about you than me.
False. Your language was clear. You said I removed comments I didn't like (which is false), and then you said I might have "other" reasons ... that necessarily implies that me not liking them was a reason. You're lying.
You have said that you delete the comments because you have banned the person. That is another reason ...
False. It is THE reason. There is no other reason. You're lying.
... one that you have that is different from the one I suggested.
Yes, you said I removed them because I didn't like them. It's a lie.
I didn't claim that you deleted any specific comments containing "the lies".
False. You said that me deleting comments because it is a lie shows a "lack of confidence that others can judge for themselves." Except that I don't delete comments for containing lies, and I *do* leave the comments there for people ot judge for themselves.
You say you banned Jensen because he lies -- I think that's covered in the second half of what I said.
Yes, so you admit you were lying when you said you didn't claim I deleted comments containing lies.
So, ban me if you like, pudge. It says more about you than me.
No, it really doesn't say anything about me ... except maybe that I was TOO generous in letting you lie so much.
Any thoughts about the way we're being crushed by the Slavery Party budgets and stimulus they're cramming through in Washington, DC? Or do you simply have an unhealthy obsession with pudge?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 21, 2009 04:53 PMIf you scroll through some of the projects, obviously the 'stimulus' is just a bailout of state & local deficits. In other words, it is a way to transfer the ability of the federal gov't to print money down to the state and local levels.
Hyperinflation, here we come.
Posted by: travis t on October 21, 2009 09:12 PM