Against which person are these two statements part of an indictment? HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.

FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

a. Gary Locke b. King George c. All of the abov

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 22, 1999

Answers

Well it can't be A. I believe we gave Gary Locke our consent to erect a Multitude of new Offices, and send hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance when 1,296,492 of us elected him to be governor. Unless you can show me in the state constitution where he has specifically stepped outside the bounds of his office to perform these acts. He also usually has over a 60% approval record, and it is doubtful that the GOP will even field a credible candidate against him next year. That seems to point out that the citizens of Washington continue to grant their concent towards his actions.

I believe that in your comparison, you left out the fact that the Founding Fathers also complained that they were being taxed without representation. Just a slight

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 22, 1999.

Yeah, Patrick... I know what you mean. Of course, Gary is violating a law he just signed a couple of months ago... you know... the academic accountability commission issue? Not bad for this state's main law-enforcement officer, huh?

That's what I love about the guy. He's clearly out of touch with the people (How many times have his initiative/referendum positions been rejected?) has no problem lying directly thru his teeth (did I- 200 "end affirmative action?" He told us it would. So when does that happen?) breaks the law whenever the mood strikes, and we all love him.

Sounds like presidential material to me.

Westin

(Who has some cryptic saying from Lincoln about being raised to love the law right on the tip of his tongue, but who is just too tired to remember it.)

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 23, 1999.

Well Westin, if he is violating the law, then it is quite easy to file a lawsuit. I've heard a number of people complain that Locke is breaking the law (especially when it comes to I-200), but they do absolutely nothing to back up their whinning.

Yes, he did oppose R-49 and I-200, and they both won. Does that mean that he is "out of touch with the people"? Hardly. Those were two issues out of hundreds. Two issues does not constitute the entire "will of the people."

There is also some great irony where the original poster complained about Locke erecting a multitude of offices while Westin complains that Locke is NOT erecting some offices.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 23, 1999.

Patrick, you say Westin is complaining because Locke is NOT erecting offices. Therein lies the major problem with your thinking processes. Compliance with a law does NOT require the erection of an office. The efficent manner of complying with many laws is the ELIMINATION of an office. Government doesn't understand this and obviously neither do you. Locke would probably LOVE to create several committees to study the effects of the elimination of each of the RCWs indicated in I-695. But the sensible thing to do is just comply with the law.

I-200 has created much study and many positions to determine just how to circumvent it. And it's not alone in that position.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 23, 1999.

Maddjak, had you thought to check out what Westin was talking about when he wrote that Locke is violating the law, you would discover that you are in complete error on this particular subject. Senate Bill 5418 which was passed this session SPECIFICALLY requires the creation of the A+ Commission. So in this case, the law does require the creation of a new office and the appointment of several people.

Therein lies the problem in your thinking process. You apparently fail to realize that laws can be fairly specific about the creation of a new office, and that they don't just pop up on the whim of the Governor.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 23, 1999.

HHHoooookay...

As I suspected, it doesn't bother you that he's in violation of his oath and a law he signed.

I DIDN'T expect you to spin it with this answer, however:

"Well Westin, if he is violating the law, then it is quite easy to file a lawsuit."

"If?" What do you mean, "if?" Do you mean he ISN'T breaking the law?

Is it? Is it "quite easy?" How much would it cost, say, me, to file such a suit? I'm not making over $100,000 a year... so how easy would it be for me to pay for a lawyer?

On the contrary, Patrick, it is not nearly as "easy" as you make it out to be.

I do note that you don't take a position on his actions... Guess the words won't come when it's one of your own, huh?

But I could say the same thing about this initiative, Patrick. Why do you give a damn if it passes... after all, it's "easy to file a lawsuit."

"I've heard a number of people complain that Locke is breaking the law (especially when it comes to I-200), but they do absolutely nothing to back up their whinning."

OK... sticking to the A+ Commission for the moment, is it your position that he ISN'T breaking the law? Should we HAVE to file suit to get him to follow the law? Does the fact that he's breaking it inspire confidence in his judgment and leadership in you?

As for I-200, can you explain the continued existance of the various offices with mission statements to further the lot of our allegedly oppressed minority population, given the edict from the people that clearly removes such favoritism?

If you were even to make the decision that he was breaking the law... would that even bother you? You go on: "Yes, he did oppose R-49 and I-200, and they both won."

I have no problem with his opposition to these, or any other issues. He's entitled to his position. In fact, I welcome his opposition to this initiative. Given his past, abysmal record, that practically guarantees its passage.

But is he entitled to lie to us about these initiatives? When are we supposed to believe him... does a little "truth light" go off on his forehead when he's telling us the truth?

Does it bother you that he's lied to us, Patrick? Or is that just the cost of doing business where you come from?

"Does that mean that he is "out of touch with the people"? Hardly."

Actually, Patrick, I believe that any politician reduced to lying to support their position is out of touch with the people. Are situational ethics REALLY so appealing to you?

"Those were two issues out of hundreds. Two issues does not constitute the entire 'will of the people.'"

So... how many would it take? How many would be enough? Those two issues were issues that he expended a great deal of political capitol on... he lost, badly. There are, of course, many others... other initiatives... the stadium issue... hardly signs that he firmly has his fingers on the pulse of the people.

"There is also some great irony where the original poster complained about Locke erecting a multitude of offices while Westin complains that Locke is NOT erecting some offices."

Actually, there would irony if we weren't both correct. There are a variety of offices that can be ripped down... and one that needs to be built. No irony... just fact.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 23, 1999.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 23, 1999.

Well even though we're way off topic here, I might as well continue the debate.

""If?" What do you mean, "if?" Do you mean he ISN'T breaking the law?"

I mean, IF he is breaking the law, then PROVE it to me. Last I checked this country still considers a person innocent until proven guilty. The only way you can do that is to bring it to a court of law. Want to know why no one is filing a lawsuit on the A+ issue? The law says that each caucus (House R's and D's, Senate R's and D's) has to submit a certain number of suggested people. The House R's and the Senate R's submitted almost the exact same list. If it were to go to court, it is very possible that the judge would rule that in fact the Republican caucuses violated the law by not submitting the proper number of different people, thus meaning that the Governor can't complete his required actions under the law until they finish their job.

As for not having the funds, I believe the entire Clinton litigation over the past few years proves that there is ALWAYS people with money available to spend and lawyers with enough free time to file politicaly motivated lawsuits. You may not have the funds, but someone or some group most certainly has the money to file a case IF they thought there was a case to argue.

"Why do you give a damn if it passes... after all, it's "easy to file a lawsuit.""

Just because something is easy to do, doesn't mean its the best thing to do. Such lawsuits take court time and tax dollars to fight. Defeating the thing in the first place will save both.

On I-200. The Attorney General's office warned that the wording of the initiative was hazy at best. I-200 also just removed race and gender as a factor for hiring and the awarding of contracts. The state can still encourage them to apply. Locke is following his interpretation of the letter of the law. There may be other interpretations, but again, that is for the courts to decide if someone wants to bring that up. Besides, the supporters claimed that it wouldn't end Affirmative Action, so there you go.

"I welcome his opposition to this initiative. Given his past, abysmal record, that practically guarantees its passage."

Minimum wage initiative, ban on partial birth abortions, Seahawk stadium package (which passed by the way). Three items in which his view won. He also campaigned for Patty Murray and a number of legislative candidates pretty heavily. Who controls the State Senate now, and gained about 11 seats to tie the House?

So are you saying that the people aren't capable of figuring out when someone is lying? Do you want to get into that entire "trust in the people" debate again?

Your claims that Locke lied about R-49 and I-200 are of course your opinion. First you complain that he said that I-200 would end affirmative action, but then you complain that he isn't enforcing it so it COULD end affirmative action. His statements against R-49 were that A) it would take 25 years to pay back the money for 5 years of work (hardly a lie) and B) in the event of a recession and a budget shortfall, the MVET money that would have paid for things like education would instead be going towards debt payments (a theory based upon projections). If there are any other "l

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 23, 1999.

""If?" What do you mean, "if?" Do you mean he ISN'T breaking the law?"

I mean, IF he is breaking the law, then PROVE it to me.

Patrick, you remind me of the typical Clinton supporter. You know, the kind you could show a video tape of Bill molesting a pack of girl scouts, and who would continue to support him anyway.

The law has certain specific requirements in it. They include naming the commission by July 1. It does not provide him with any excuse; any way to avoid it; any requirement that he approve of the nominees submitted. It requires that he select the committee; that he do so by July 1, and that the committee meet for the first time on July 21.

He is deliberately violating the very law that he signed. And by violating the law, he is violating his oath. You know, the one that requires him to uphold the laws of this state?

Last I checked this country still considers a person innocent until proven guilty.

I bet youre equally charitable to those who supported Reagan, Bush and North, right?

Patrick, if I were to, say, break your arm... and you saw me break your arm... would you need to have a jury convict me before you believed I broke your arm? What if I was acquitted, ala OJ. Could I, in your eyes, hide behind the fact that I hadnt been convicted as proof that I hadnt broke your arm, even if you saw me do it?

The jury acquitted OJ... do you REALLY think he didnt kill Nicole and Ron? If you stand by that requirement of proof for Locke, then you obviously must.

The only way you can do that is to bring it to a court of law. 

Let me ask you Patrick... in this instance, what difference would it make to you if this matter was brought to court, and Locke was adjudged as violating the law (which he obviously would/will be.) to you? Youd support him as much as you do now, and like most liberals, believe the sun comes up in the East because he ordains it.

Locke is breaking the law. You can spin it on its head; call it whatever you like; but the law is clear, and clearly, hes breaking it along with his oath.

Oaths DO mean something to you, dont they Patrick?

Want to know why no one is filing a lawsuit on the A+ issue? The law says that each caucus (House R's and D's, Senate R's and D's) has to submit a certain number of suggested people. The House R's and the Senate R's submitted almost the exact same list. If it were to go to court, it is very possible that the judge would rule that in fact the Republican caucuses violated the law by not submitting the proper number of different people, thus meaning that the Governor can't complete his required actions under the law until they finish their job. 

Facetious at best, Patrick. There is NOTHING in the law that supports Lockes position, or your recitation of it. Merely mouthing the words of Lockes talking heads does nothing to justify his failure to act. It is not only not very possible, its practically IMpossible that a judge would rule that way.

Unless you can provide some language in the bill that I may have missed? You know, like the part that REQUIRES the caucuses to submit different names?

As for not having the funds, I believe the entire Clinton litigation over the past few years proves that there is ALWAYS people with money available to spend and lawyers with enough free time to file politically motivated lawsuits.

Of course, filing a suit against Locke to have him follow the law need not be motivated by anything other then the precise same charitable view you have taken towards the unknown, non-members of the establishment behind the No on 695 web site... right?

You may not have the funds, but someone or some group most certainly has the money to file a case IF they thought there was a case to argue.

Or IF they viewed it as being worth their time and effort before the legislature gets around to suing him.

"Why do you give a damn if it passes... after all, it's "easy to file a lawsuit.""

Just because something is easy to do, doesn't mean its the best thing to do. Such lawsuits take court time and tax dollars to fight. Defeating the thing in the first place will save both. 

But Patrick... here you just regaled us with the tale of how theirs LOTS of money around just for that very purpose!

And its so... EASY. According to you.

I mean, the unions and the businesses have pledged up to 4 million dollars in what will prove to be their losing effort.

You think it would cost more in legal fees to defeat this in court then theyll waste when it wins in November? On I-200. The Attorney General's office warned that the wording of the initiative was hazy at best.

Yeah, but the courts approved the language in the title, didnt they? I mean, your test for whats right or wrong has been met. Obviously, the AG aside, there cant be any problem with I-200s title... the almighty courts have said so! Mustnt engage in any double standards, right. Patrick?

But that reminds me of another lie from our governor... this one in the voters guide in his anti-statement. He wrote Because of its vague and broadly written language, I-200 can and will be read many ways. It is confusing and will create a tangle of expensive lawsuits. 

So... Patrick... when is the tangle of expensive lawsuits phase set to begin? I mean, its only been, what...10 months... and how many suits over I-200 have been filed? When does that happen? I mean, the governor could NEVER mislead us... could he? I-200 also just removed race and gender as a factor for hiring and the awarding of contracts.

Well, yeah... and admission to state schools.

The state can still encourage them to apply.

The actual phrase from the voters guide (which, as we already know is meaningless to you if Ralphs interpretation doesnt agree with yours) was It would prohibit state and local agencies from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

So...now youre going to tell me that the Office of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises, for example, are only still there to encourage women and minorities to apply?

Right.

Locke is following his interpretation of the letter of the law.

Yeah. So was Himmler. That cut didnt cut it in Nuremberg, and it doesnt get it here.

-More-

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 24, 1999.

There may be other interpretations, but again, that is for the courts to decide if someone wants to bring that up.

Maybe it will be one of the tangle of expensive lawsuits. Maybe not.

Besides, the supporters claimed that it wouldn't end Affirmative Action, so there you go. 

Nothing Ive written said otherwise. But the fact is that our esteemed Governor got on my TV screen and TOLD me that it would... didnt he?

"I welcome his opposition to this initiative. Given his past, abysmal record, that practically guarantees its passage."

Minimum wage initiative, ban on partial birth abortions, Seahawk stadium package (which passed by the way).

Gee, I hadnt noticed him campaigning against the partial birth abortion initiative. The Mariners Stadium Tax package to King County voters... Yeah... and I-200, I-676 and 677, R 47 and R 49... Lockes positions defeated in each. I like my chances, to quote the Bard.

Three items in which his view won.

Six where they lost... and many that lost HUGE.

He also campaigned for Patty Murray and a number of legislative candidates pretty heavily. Who controls the State Senate now, and gained about 11 seats to tie the House? 

Thats a tough question.... but heres the answer: the unions control it... like they control him. Tell me which bills to veto, and Ill veto them. Candidate Gary Locke, 1996

So are you saying that the people aren't capable of figuring out when someone is lying?

No. They obviously DID figure out he was lying. Hes lied about so many things, my question stands...

When do we know hes telling the truth?

For example, why should he be believed about 695? What guarantee do we have that he isnt lying now?

Do you want to get into that entire "trust in the people" debate again? 

Whats to debate? I do trust the peoples ability. They saw through his lies on I-200, I have little doubt theyll see through them on 695.

Your claims that Locke lied about R-49 and I-200 are of course your opinion.

Yeah. If I were to look outside right now (11:22 p.m.), and say it was dark. THAT would be my opinion as well.

Is it your position that when Locke told us that I-200 would end affirmative action in this state he WASNT lying?

And when Locke told us all in his R 49 statement that: Referendum 49 will plunge the state into the deepest debt in history - credit card debt that will take a generation to pay off. Taxpayers will pay billions of dollars in interest that should be spent on roads and transit!  while forgetting that HIS plan would have done EXACTLY the same thing, in addition to bumping up our gas tax by 11 cents per gallon to boot; what would you have us think?

 First you complain that he said that I-200 would end affirmative action, but then you complain that he isn't enforcing it so it COULD end affirmative action. 

Patrick, if those offices disappeared tomorrow, affirmative action would STILL be here. I know it... and so do you. Nothing in I-200 ended AA anywhere except in government... and private sector AA is still alive and well.

His statements against R-49 were that A) it would take 25 years to pay back the money for 5 years of work (hardly a lie) and B) in the event of a recession and a budget shortfall, the MVET money that would have paid for things like education would instead be going towards debt payments (a theory based upon projections).

So, Patrick. Why dont you take another trip down memory lane and tell us the particulars of Lockes plan? Tell us how long it would have taken to pay off HIS debt service, for example. Then, run on down to a gas station... look at the price of gas, then add the 11 cents Locke wanted to add to the price you see... and remember that R 49 kept that from happening.

Obviously the rest was cut off.

(If there are any other "l)

In closing, to believe that Locke isn't breaking the law because he hasn't been convicted of anything, is to believe that OJ is innocent, because... after all... he wasn't convicted either... was he?

Westin

"If the tax don't fit, you must vote agin' it."

Johnny Cocharan

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 24, 1999.

Well I'm sure Craig is regretting the selection of sending answers to his e-mail account by now, seeing as there are a number of lengthy "answers" that are not even remotely associated with the I-695 debate. It is painfully clear to me that Westin either doesn't understand the way the legal system works in this country or has decided to ignore it in favor of making his views correct. Either way, it's like trying to discuss cartography with someone who belongs to the Flat Earth Society. I'm going to get back to the issues surrounding I-695 after I try to make this clear one last time.

The courts determine who, in the eyes of the law, is innocent or guilty. They also determine what the laws mean and what they don't. What they decide becomes legal fact. Everything else is opinion. Westin's view of what I-200, I-695, and every other law, proposed or standing has the same legal weight as mine, any legislator, the governor, or any other citizen who is not a judge currently reviewing the law: zero. A person may be able to convince others that his or her opinion can better predict what a judge will rule on a given law, but in the end, it still isn't their call to make.

Westin can make all the wild gestures and examples that he wants to show how odd the legal system is, and how it sometimes flies in the face of common sense, but that doesn't make it any less true. He could physically break my arm, but legally he can only be arrested on probable cause, and charges can be filed only allegedly saying that he broke my arm. Only after a jury convicts him of that crime can I legally say that he broke my arm. Same thing goes with politics. Westin can allege that Locke is lying and that he is breaking the law by not appointing the A+ Commission or enforcing I-200 all he wants. But he's not legally doing any of these things until proven so in a court. So are their other ways to get what you want without filing a lawsuit? Sure. If enough people have the opinion that he has violated his oath of office, then they can attempt to recall him. I can hear your response now. "We shouldn't have to do that. He should feel compelled to follow his oath." Well who's to say he doesn't believe he isn't. I've already stated his opinion on the A+ Commission. The fact that 2/3 of the people of Washington think he's doing a good job also seems to show that he's doing what the people want. Your claims not withstanding, I haven't heard much outcry on his enforcement of I-200 nor anything else. The only way you'll be able to convince me otherwise is if there is a creditable recall attempt, or if he loses a re-election bid. Otherwise it's just your opinion versus a mound of legal facts against you.

Westin, you can continue this debate all you want. I'm done. But try to remember that you aren't debating me, you're debating the reality that is our legal system.

"But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

Dennis Miller

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.

Well, Patrick;

I'll wrap it up then by saying that painful awareness can often be the result of having your positions destroyed, as I have destroyed yours here.

This is not, and never has been a matter of guilt or innocence. Your failure to address the issues I raised concerning your absurd need to live or die with a jury verdict as your sole basis of assigning a value to an opinion pretty much speaks for itself.

That you are incapable of responding to the obvious absurdities of your position has nothing to do with any argument that I have with the justice system. I, in fact, have no argument with it, nor did I ever say or infer that I did.

You set an impossibly high level of proof that cannot be attained in order to shield yourself from the truth of the matter. By standing behind a statement ("He is innocent until proven guilty.") you preclude yourself from using common-sense to arrive at any opinion about anyone.

As for my knowledge of the system, be it government or legal, you have yet to show me anything of substance to back your assertions that I am deficient in any way. As you foolishly pointed out, just because you say it does not make it so.

When you assert, for example, all of the negative impacts that you allege about I-695, I can take the "Patrick Tact," stand there with my arms crossed, and just tell the whole world: "Nope. None of it's true unless it comes out of a court room."

Grow up, Patrick. Become a man. Get an opinion based on your common sense... and not, as is all to obvious, what you've been told.

Westin

fini

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 24, 1999.