Fun new off topic - Ore-Ida

[CougSinceBirth]

Definition of insanity, right there.

Jay sucks and we think who ever takes his place might suck too.

So keep voting for Jay!!!

Then offer a better alternative candidate than Loren Culp...? Instead of complaining, find other solutions.

Stop voting based on the party system and start voting on the candidate alone. God forbid voters mix some red and blue when voting on their ballots!

 

[425cougfan]

Most people want moderate candidates with reasonable positions. Most people are not involved with politics and a substantial cohort doesn't vote at all, even in major elections.

Those at the extremes have outsized influence in the primary processes and are able to get more donations and support due to motivating their supporters more easily.

Information silos and groupthink on both ends of the political spectrum, fostered by partisan, profit-driven media feeding fools' confirmation bias, spewing slanted BS and holding up examples of the extreme positions on the other side as evidence that they are the "good guys," combines with the foregoing to result in support of clowns on both sides that few in the middle would want.

"We should have a discussion about immigration and the border and find a way to have an efficient, humane, cost-effective means of ensuring reasonable border security while protecting vital national interests, and to implement an immigration system that reflects our core values and heritage as a land of immigrants with a diverse population, but draws from other western nations' policies that make sense, like points-based systems that encourage those with needed skills to immigrate and requires others to demonstrate they will not be a drain on entitlement programs and public services, all while leveraging our standing in the world," doesn't really get anyone excited. A talking head screaming about racism and families separated at the border, or about an illegal immigrant gang member who murdered a nice old white lady, does.

Meanwhile, most of us here probably are in the middle or somewhere close, despite how it seems sometimes.

 

[Stretch 74]

Mik…I would take issue with a couple of comments. One you made is lazy, tax and spend democrats .

I went out to dinner with three other couples last night. Had this discussion last night with someone who you would consider a libtard. He goes to his phone where he had notes about the debt.

This is from memory about spending. From 1930 to 1980 the US amassed 1 trillion in debt. Reagen took the debt from 1 trillion to 3 trillion. Bush one took it from 3 to 6. If I recall Clinton. Reduce it a smidge . In 8 years Bush 2 doubled the debt. To 12 trillion plus.

Obama went from 12 to 16 .Obama inherited the worst finically crisis since the Depression.

Trump in four years bumped it up another 4 trillion .

Over 69% of the debt over the last forty years has been amassed by a Republican president . So maybe it would be more accurate libtards are the party of taxation to pay for stuff and the Republican Party is the party of spending .

Check out the numbers as this is from memory after having a drink so I could be off in terms of exact trillions spent . But the percentage of 69% in increase of bevy has been under a Republican President.

ED, going to take big issue with one thing you said here. Obama did, and now Biden also does, love to talk about all the bad things they "inherited" when they took ofifce. The truth is they did NOT inherit anything-they actively sought out the office of president so they could run things. They did so knowing exactly what the situation was, Yet after they got in office they try to use the inherited excuse to pretend like there was nothing they could do about the situation, which is false.

To inherit something is to receive something without taking any action on your part to get it. To take over as president is to do everything in your power to win the election so you can be in charge. The buck is supposed to stop at the top, in the Oval Office. To blame things relative to the economy on "inheritance" is simply bullshit, a failure to grab control and fix things.

 

[95coug]

Then offer a better alternative candidate than Loren Culp...? Instead of complaining, find other solutions.

Stop voting based on the party system and start voting on the candidate alone. God forbid voters mix some red and blue when voting on their ballots!

Well, don’t forget that Washington decided that the political parties’ rights are more important than those of the voters, and made it so you had to choose between dems and republicans, and then could only vote for those candidates in the primaries.

 

[mikalalas]

Mik…I would take issue with a couple of comments. One you made is lazy, tax and spend democrats .

I went out to dinner with three other couples last night. Had this discussion last night with someone who you would consider a libtard. He goes to his phone where he had notes about the debt.

This is from memory about spending. From 1930 to 1980 the US amassed 1 trillion in debt. Reagen took the debt from 1 trillion to 3 trillion. Bush one took it from 3 to 6. If I recall Clinton. Reduce it a smidge . In 8 years Bush 2 doubled the debt. To 12 trillion plus.

Obama went from 12 to 16 .Obama inherited the worst finically crisis since the Depression.

Trump in four years bumped it up another 4 trillion .

Over 69% of the debt over the last forty years has been amassed by a Republican president . So maybe it would be more accurate libtards are the party of taxation to pay for stuff and the Republican Party is the party of spending .

Check out the numbers as this is from memory after having a drink so I could be off in terms of exact trillions spent . But the percentage of 69% in increase of bevy has been under a Republican President.

Ed, this is all I going to say about your response.

You know who the Britain Prime Minister can't remember her name is? She was prime minister for VERY LONG time.

Well before, and under her watch the liberals Financially ruined Britain, and then she used Reaganomic TOUGH LOVE to SAVE Britain from FINANCIAL RUIN, DISASTER. And she left the Britain economy in wonderful shape. But if she had not won reelection like she did, She would have had Britain stuck with the worst economy ever debt, gdp, various ways, etc, wise.

Reaganomics was based on Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's FISCAL policies, approach etc.

And Reagan successfully used that approach as governor of CA, and why a LOT of Democrats voted for him, at least in the first election between either Carter or Carter's would be democratic replacement.

The principle of conservative fiscal policy, is to cut taxes, and cut spending.

Here is what happens when do that.

1. People have more money to spend, and spend that more money by buying big money items, that STIMULATES ECONOMY, thru people having more money to voluntarily spend. People spending more of the money they now have because of lower taxation, make businesses money. And they have to EXPAND to meet INCREASED CONSUMER DEMAND.

Because of that Businesses CREATE MORE JOBS, and on a MARKET DEMAND basis PAY MORE for JOB SKILLS they need to Expand, meet demand etc.

This creates a BIGGER MIDDLE CLASS EMPLOYEE TAX BASE.

Also because people have more money and because they see other businesses successfully start up because they had more money because of lower taxes, etc, they then also start businesses, instead of working as a employee, and also create more jobs, more money, pay more for the job skills they need.

That also creates a BIGGER TAX BASE of Businesses, Middle Class Employees, etc.

That is called the TRICKLE DOWN THEN UP TO GOVERNMENT IN TAXATION of Middle-class employee's, and businesses.

The only problems with that is in the SHORT TERM the DEBT, BUDGET, etc, GO SKY HIGH UNTIL THE LONG TERM, and can be semi somewhat painful to some in the beginning of the Short Term.

Other possible problems are IF a temporary recession hits, because the TRICKLE DOWN system is DEPENDENT on the economy being STIMULATED, and being GOOD.

Other problems are IF either the other side in Congress, or the Rhino Republic in Congress either fight Trickle Down, or fight the CUTTING OF SPENDING, or if a President like Trump reduces taxation, but does not also cut spending. And that's because for trickle down to work, you have to also cut spending, and if don't cut spending then Trickle Down WILL NOT WORK.

The reason why BUSH, TRUMP did not do good on debt, budget is that while they rightly cut taxes, they did not also cut spending whether their fault or the fault of their opposition in Congress.

Also Bush had to deal with Terrorism, Depression, Recession, etc, that SHOT DOWN their efforts.

And the only reason why Clinton did good debt, budget surplus wise, is because the fiscally conservative republicans controlled everything in Government except the Presidency back in the mid 90's, and I give Clinton Credit for working in a Bi Partisanship manner with Republicans on Work First Welfare Reform, and on the debt, budget, etc, out of Politics, political expediency.

If it hadn't been for the conservative Congress fighting to do Trickle Down, etc, and if Clinton had not worked with Republicans, and if the mid 90's had been as filled with War, Depressions, recessions, famines, Terrorism as Bush's and Trump's presidencies, then Clinton would not have done as good fiscally. He was right to work with Republicans, and right to use Trickle Down. A lot of people forget that the republican Congress during Clinton's presidency was able to cut taxes, and CUT SPENDING.

It may sound counter intuitive, but if you cut taxes, AND CUT SPENDING to go with tax cuts, then that will STIMULATE ECONOMY TO GOOD ECONOMY, and that will create a BIGGER TAX BASE of more people paying taxes then before, and that would solve everything, especially if in addition to Tax Cuts, Cutting Spending, you make it something like about a 3% to 5% to 7% to 10% to 13% FLAT TAX.

It works as evidenced by Margaret Thatcher and by WW2 British Prime Minister, who also did the same as Thatcher, Reagan, etc.

It's a true principle, concept, etc, that does work, and has worked in past.


BUT AGAIN YOU MISSED THE POINT ED.

Yes FISCAL CONSERVATISM is part of conservatism, and is related to what talking about.

But I didn't mention FISCAL conservativism.

I was talking about how the EXTREMIST COMMUNIST, SOCIALIST, MARXIST, LIBTARDS, IN WESTERN WA, have HI JACKED the democrat party in WA, HI JACKED, CONTROL SEMI MODERATE MORE CENTRIST LIBERALS BY THE NARRATIVE TO FLING SHET AT THE MODERATES, AND CONSERVATIVES IN EASTERN WA.

NOTE CENTRIST, MODERATE, SEMI MODERATE, WORKING MAN, MIDDLE CLASS, BLUE DOG, PURPLE DOG DEMOCRATS, LIBERALS(their version of Rhino Republicans), ARE NOT LIBTARDS.

ANTIFA, Acorn, black panthers, Malcom X, Black Lives Matter, communist, socialist, Marxist, thought police, political correctness police, social just warriors(not the good, normal ones, but the dumbazzes that sue a small business bake for about $100k to $200k for not baking a cake on grounds of religious beliefs and suing, boycotting North Carolina for not letting penises into female bathrooms.), Etc, THOSE ARE THE LIBTARDS THAT FLING THERE SHET AT centrist, moderates, Rhino Republicans, conservatives, the rest of us, etc

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Mik, I love your posts and am happy you are part of this board. I don't have to agree with you.

My god does not make junk, and the key point that I've come around to after a lot of time on this earth is that some people choose their preferences and some are born that way. I'm old enough to know family members from the time they were born and there is no doubt in my mind that they were born that way. That, more than any other single thing, is what has informed my evolution in opinion on that issue. And I laugh at the redneck comments. My cousins up in the very far NE corner of the state are by many standards as redneck as they come. Yet they recognized that some of the cousins they grew up with were never hetero. And their K-8 school of 130-or so folks was far more accepting than many larger places, because these kids all grew up together and saw it for themselves. My personal experience in growing up in a B school district nearer to Spokane was similar. If you knew them from way before puberty, nothing in their maturing to adulthood is particularly surprising.

And if you accept that some are born that way, the rest pretty much follows. So if we don't have that acceptance of fact in common, then the rest of the posts make sense. I don't get mad at folks over that issue, because in some ways that was me 30 years ago. But we are all intended to learn from our life experiences. That is a part of being human. We may not learn immediately, but more time and more reflection can lead to a changing of the mind on many issues. It also helps to generate ideas on how to effectively respond in a non-polarized manner to most of our social issues today...homelessness, the border, global warming....take your pick. Courses of action that actually work and can really be implemented are the place to start. And unfortunately, it seems like only moderates can speak with each other in those terms today.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Ed, this is all I going to say about your response.

You know who the Britain Prime Minister can't remember her name is? She was prime minister for VERY LONG time.

Well before, and under her watch the liberals Financially ruined Britain, and then she used Reaganomic TOUGH LOVE to SAVE Britain from FINANCIAL RUIN, DISASTER. And she left the Britain economy in wonderful shape. But if she had not won reelection like she did, She would have had Britain stuck with the worst economy ever debt, gdp, various ways, etc, wise.

Reaganomics was based on Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's FISCAL policies, approach etc.

And Reagan successfully used that approach as governor of CA, and why a LOT of Democrats voted for him, at least in the first election between either Carter or Carter's would be democratic replacement.

The principle of conservative fiscal policy, is to cut taxes, and cut spending.

Here is what happens when do that.

1. People have more money to spend, and spend that more money by buying big money items, that STIMULATES ECONOMY, thru people having more money to voluntarily spend. People spending more of the money they now have because of lower taxation, make businesses money. And they have to EXPAND to meet INCREASED CONSUMER DEMAND.

Because of that Businesses CREATE MORE JOBS, and on a MARKET DEMAND basis PAY MORE for JOB SKILLS they need to Expand, meet demand etc.

This creates a BIGGER MIDDLE CLASS EMPLOYEE TAX BASE.

Also because people have more money and because they see other businesses successfully start up because they had more money because of lower taxes, etc, they then also start businesses, instead of working as a employee, and also create more jobs, more money, pay more for the job skills they need.

That also creates a BIGGER TAX BASE of Businesses, Middle Class Employees, etc.

That is called the TRICKLE DOWN THEN UP TO GOVERNMENT IN TAXATION of Middle-class employee's, and businesses.

The only problems with that is in the SHORT TERM the DEBT, BUDGET, etc, GO SKY HIGH UNTIL THE LONG TERM, and can be semi somewhat painful to some in the beginning of the Short Term.

Other possible problems are IF a temporary recession hits, because the TRICKLE DOWN system is DEPENDENT on the economy being STIMULATED, and being GOOD.

Other problems are IF either the other side in Congress, or the Rhino Republic in Congress either fight Trickle Down, or fight the CUTTING OF SPENDING, or if a President like Trump reduces taxation, but does not also cut spending. And that's because for trickle down to work, you have to also cut spending, and if don't cut spending then Trickle Down WILL NOT WORK.

The reason why BUSH, TRUMP did not do good on debt, budget is that while they rightly cut taxes, they did not also cut spending whether their fault or the fault of their opposition in Congress.

Also Bush had to deal with Terrorism, Depression, Recession, etc, that SHOT DOWN their efforts.

And the only reason why Clinton did good debt, budget surplus wise, is because the fiscally conservative republicans controlled everything in Government except the Presidency back in the mid 90's, and I give Clinton Credit for working in a Bi Partisanship manner with Republicans on Work First Welfare Reform, and on the debt, budget, etc, out of Politics, political expediency.

If it hadn't been for the conservative Congress fighting to do Trickle Down, etc, and if Clinton had not worked with Republicans, and if the mid 90's had been as filled with War, Depressions, recessions, famines, Terrorism as Bush's and Trump's presidencies, then Clinton would not have done as good fiscally. He was right to work with Republicans, and right to use Trickle Down. A lot of people forget that the republican Congress during Clinton's presidency was able to cut taxes, and CUT SPENDING.

It may sound counter intuitive, but if you cut taxes, AND CUT SPENDING to go with tax cuts, then that will STIMULATE ECONOMY TO GOOD ECONOMY, and that will create a BIGGER TAX BASE of more people paying taxes then before, and that would solve everything, especially if in addition to Tax Cuts, Cutting Spending, you make it something like about a 3% to 5% to 7% to 10% to 13% FLAT TAX.

It works as evidenced by Margaret Thatcher and by WW2 British Prime Minister, who also did the same as Thatcher, Reagan, etc.

It's a true principle, concept, etc, that does work, and has worked in past.


BUT AGAIN YOU MISSED THE POINT ED.

Yes FISCAL CONSERVATISM is part of conservatism, and is related to what talking about.

But I didn't mention FISCAL conservativism.

I was talking about how the EXTREMIST COMMUNIST, SOCIALIST, MARXIST, LIBTARDS, IN WESTERN WA, have HI JACKED the democrat party in WA, HI JACKED, CONTROL SEMI MODERATE MORE CENTRIST LIBERALS BY THE NARRATIVE TO FLING SHET AT THE MODERATES, AND CONSERVATIVES IN EASTERN WA.

NOTE CENTRIST, MODERATE, SEMI MODERATE, WORKING MAN, MIDDLE CLASS, BLUE DOG, PURPLE DOG DEMOCRATS, LIBERALS(their version of Rhino Republicans), ARE NOT LIBTARDS.

ANTIFA, Acorn, black panthers, Malcom X, Black Lives Matter, communist, socialist, Marxist, thought police, political correctness police, social just warriors(not the good, normal ones, but the dumbazzes that sue a small business bake for about $100k to $200k for not baking a cake on grounds of religious beliefs and suing, boycotting North Carolina for not letting penises into female bathrooms.), Etc, THOSE ARE THE LIBTARDS THAT FLING THERE SHET AT centrist, moderates, Rhino Republicans, conservatives, the rest of us, etc

Dude, this is about the most ridiculous post I've seen. Geezus give your crazy $hit a rest.

 

[mikalalas]

ED, going to take big issue with one thing you said here. Obama did, and now Biden also does, love to talk about all the bad things they "inherited" when they took ofifce. The truth is they did NOT inherit anything-they actively sought out the office of president so they could run things. They did so knowing exactly what the situation was, Yet after they got in office they try to use the inherited excuse to pretend like there was nothing they could do about the situation, which is false.

To inherit something is to receive something without taking any action on your part to get it. To take over as president is to do everything in your power to win the election so you can be in charge. The buck is supposed to stop at the top, in the Oval Office. To blame things relative to the economy on "inheritance" is simply bullshit, a failure to grab control and fix things.

Stretch, since I can't find ED's comment that you replied to, I am going to reply to Ed's comment by replying to this comment, so I am not replying to you or your comment

I'm hoping that Ed, others can follow the comment chain, especially with Ed's Reading comprehension.


Reply to Ed's comment:


You need to work on your reading comprehension ED, that or I need to communicate better, or BOTH.


NOWHERE in my FIRST COMMENT, response to you did I mention or talk about or implied anything to do with your comment about fiscal conservativism, debt, budget, inheriting, etc.

Your first comment you mentioned, talked about the COMMON GROUND, SHARED VALUES, etc.

You got my response misunderstood, mixed up, probably because of not only your reading comprehension or lack thereof, but also probably because I used LIBTARD.

Then you responded with your fiscal conservative based comment, even tho I didn't mention FISCAL conservativism or cutting taxes, or cutting spending, or inheriting, etc

Then I clarified responded and am further clarifying, responding to that comment.

I'm not going to debate a BRICK WALL like you.

 

[anon_1nb5kgc7kwlls]

Dude, this is about the most ridiculous post I've seen. If you are such an economic and political expert, who come you can't afford to have a car? Mean comment I know, but Geezus give your crazy $hit a rest.

There could be a variety of issues that are none of your damn business. It's okay to disagree with what he posts but to be willing to throw in something so childish just shows your true character and it's a piss poor one.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

There could be a variety of issues that are none of your damn business. It's okay to disagree with what he posts but to be willing to throw in something so childish just shows your true character and it's a piss poor one.

Oh kiss my ass. You know nothing about me or my character. But fine - I will edit that comment out. Done - how about you delete that part of my reply from your post?

 

[CougEd]

ED, going to take big issue with one thing you said here. Obama did, and now Biden also does, love to talk about all the bad things they "inherited" when they took ofifce. The truth is they did NOT inherit anything-they actively sought out the office of president so they could run things. They did so knowing exactly what the situation was, Yet after they got in office they try to use the inherited excuse to pretend like there was nothing they could do about the situation, which is false.

To inherit something is to receive something without taking any action on your part to get it. To take over as president is to do everything in your power to win the election so you can be in charge. The buck is supposed to stop at the top, in the Oval Office. To blame things relative to the economy on "inheritance" is simply bullshit, a failure to grab control and fix things.

Stretch you can take any issue you want, big or small. The fact is three brilliant people, Paulson, Bernanke and Geitner led us out of a horrible situation. In doing so whoever was President was going to infuse government money into the economy. So I would make the same comment if McCain had a better VP candidate and became President.

By having to add stimulus they had to add to the debt. And the whole banking situation could have been avoided with even small oversight from 2000 to 2008.

 

[CougEd]

Stretch, since I can't find ED's comment that you replied to, I am going to reply to Ed's comment by replying to this comment, so I am not replying to you or your comment

I'm hoping that Ed, others can follow the comment chain, especially with Ed's Reading comprehension.


Reply to Ed's comment:


You need to work on your reading comprehension ED, that or I need to communicate better, or BOTH.


NOWHERE in my FIRST COMMENT, response to you did I mention or talk about or implied anything to do with your comment about fiscal conservativism, debt, budget, inheriting, etc.

Your first comment you mentioned, talked about the COMMON GROUND, SHARED VALUES, etc.

You got my response misunderstood, mixed up, probably because of not only your reading comprehension or lack thereof, but also probably because I used LIBTARD.

Then you responded with your fiscal conservative based comment, even tho I didn't mention FISCAL conservativism or cutting taxes, or cutting spending, or inheriting, etc

Then I clarified responded and am further clarifying, responding to that comment.

I'm not going to debate a BRICK WALL like you.

Mik...not a brick wall. My comprehension is just fine. I digest what you have said. I can break down three paragrahs into one sentence. The republicans increased the debt. And I don't care if you call people libtards. And I very much appreciate your honesty.

Oh, I understand very much what Reagen sold. First two votes ever cast went to Reagen. Third went to GWB. So I understand "voo doo econimics". Sounds great in theory, and I will even accept maybe in the 70's it worked. But when you off shore money, lose a large chunk of taxable dollars (when America was Great...1950's) the tax rate on the rich was 49%.

But the theory of supply side economics doesn't match the times. We made China's economy. For profits we sent jobs over to China. So we lose that tax base from how many people? Then you build up the military and cut taxes, So short or long term creating enough revenue didn't offset their spending. So 69% of the increase of the debt came at the feet of republican Presidents. So I will say again. You can accurately say democrats are the party of tax. The republcans are the party of spend and not tax.

 

[CougEd]

Ed, yes there is common ground, shared values, etc.

But there are differences, and even in the Shared Values, there are different methodologies, views on those shared values.

And there are those that are moderate in their differences, methodologies, and there are those that are not, and of those who are not moderate, there are some that are semi extreme to extreme.

And some of those differences methodologies are not as important. But there are differences, methodologies that are BAD.

Ed, on a scale of 1-5, 1-10, where 1 is Conservative, 5 on 10 scale is Moderate, 5 on 5 scale, and 10 on 10 scale is liberal, you are about a 3.65 ish on the 1-5 scale, and about a 6.8 ish on the 10 scale.

But there are those, semi lots even who are 1's, 10's, etc, on that scale.

And that can be ok in a way, if they are tolerant, and semi not ok in way, because their way is wrong, doing great hurt, harm, etc.

There are racist conservatives, that have infrastructure fail, due to not spending, taxing even 1 penny, and that kick old grandma's to curbs, and that try to force, control everything, are not tolerant, and because of all that, can get violent, etc, but they are in MINORITY, and there are less of them then:

The far left, communist, socialist, Marxist, LIBTARD, that TAXES, SPENDS, INSANE LOT, that NANNY STATE CONTROL EVERYTHING, EVERYONE,believes in free speech as long as builds their agenda, but shuts down freedoms, free speech for everyone else, they RIOT, NOT protest, burn cities to ground(Ferguson, Baltimore), etc, their groups like ANTIFA, Black Lives Matter(good, right thought, wrong, violent, controlling forceful, terroristic methodology, and ALL LIVES MATTER, including black lives, amd not just only black lives), ACORN, green peace(terror bombings of those that dont agree with their pro environment belief, chain themselves to trees to prevent logging, etc), etc, and they have created WAR ZONES(downtown Portland, Seattle, and their extreme political correctness, thought police, tearing down all statues, history destruction, etc.

Now both sides have about the same percent of insane minority on their sides, but since there are MORE liberals then conservatives, there are MORE insane liberals then insane conservatives.

Also even the insane conservatives, are less violent, etc, then the insane liberals.

And the other problem with insane liberals is that they are the semi somewhat semi popular, VOCAL minority that has a NARRATIVE, that has the overall liberal majority, side, in their power, control, which gives them MORE numbers then conservatives, which means that even if every moderate, and conservative voted, the liberals on the left, westside, controlled by the insane liberals, would still FORCE THEIR SHET on the moderates, conservatives on the East Side.

Also another difference between the insane conservatives, and the insane liberals, is that insane conservatives who have extreme views, tend to still believe the best way to further their extreme views is through voting, not thru violence, stopping speech, etc.

The insane LIBTARDS are way more violent, etc, then insane conservatives.

So Ed while there are shared values, common ground, the liberal side, usually does not want to focus on Shared Values, common ground between liberals, moderates, conservatives, and want to SJW(Social Justice Warrior), FORCE their liberal AGENDA(Whether it be Electric Cars, destroying dams, etc), on the Eastside moderates, conservatives.

Most of the more insane Westside liberals don't care about, don't give a damn about Eastside moderate and conservative lifestyles, culture, finding common ground, shared values, and only care about their insane liberal culture, lifestyle, agenda, etc, and forcing that upon the westside, Eastside moderates, conservatives.

Mik...you write "Most of the more insane Westside liberals don't care about, don't give a damn about Eastside moderate and conservative lifestyles, culture, finding common ground, shared values, and only care about their insane liberal culture, lifestyle, agenda, etc, and forcing that upon the westside, Eastside moderates, conservatives."

I asked 79 an easy question, what is it about values that differentiate where I live vs where he lives. Doesn't care to explain and I should already know. And in some respects Mik you have said the same thing.

Let me make this perfectly clear. I have lived all over the country. I spent four years in West Virginia when I was in grade school. I liked Wva. Would never move back or live there. But you know what? WVa is called home for people. They would never want to live anywhere else.

My parents lived in Oklahoma when I was at WSU. When I went to visit most backwards place I have ever been to. Couldnt sell alcohol in a bar. They would have bottle with CougEd, Mik, etc on them and you had your own bottle at a bar. Of course that wasn't our bottle, but they did it for show. You paid 6 bucks for mixer.

But again, just cause I didn't appreciate it there but for so many people that is their home and would never not appreciate what their home means to them.

So I get for many on this board eastern Washington is home. Just because I don't hunt or fish, it doesn't mean I don't have a respect for those who enjoy doing so, and enjoy not being in traffic etc etc.

You may have different political beliefs, not sure that is the same as having different values.

 

[mikalalas]

Mik, I love your posts and am happy you are part of this board. I don't have to agree with you.

My god does not make junk, and the key point that I've come around to after a lot of time on this earth is that some people choose their preferences and some are born that way. I'm old enough to know family members from the time they were born and there is no doubt in my mind that they were born that way. That, more than any other single thing, is what has informed my evolution in opinion on that issue. And I laugh at the redneck comments. My cousins up in the very far NE corner of the state are by many standards as redneck as they come. Yet they recognized that some of the cousins they grew up with were never hetero. And their K-8 school of 130-or so folks was far more accepting than many larger places, because these kids all grew up together and saw it for themselves. My personal experience in growing up in a B school district nearer to Spokane was similar. If you knew them from way before puberty, nothing in their maturing to adulthood is particularly surprising.

And if you accept that some are born that way, the rest pretty much follows. So if we don't have that acceptance of fact in common, then the rest of the posts make sense. I don't get mad at folks over that issue, because in some ways that was me 30 years ago. But we are all intended to learn from our life experiences. That is a part of being human. We may not learn immediately, but more time and more reflection can lead to a changing of the mind on many issues. It also helps to generate ideas on how to effectively respond in a non-polarized manner to most of our social issues today...homelessness, the border, global warming....take your pick. Courses of action that actually work and can really be implemented are the place to start. And unfortunately, it seems like only moderates can speak with each other in those terms today.

There is a difference between gay, and gay behavior, and those that pretend they are opposite gender like Drag Queens, Transgender(Gender Disphoria Disorder), and those that pretend, think that they are a HORSE, etc.

It may surprise you, but the Church I belong to AND ME, believe that SAME SEX ATTRACTION can be both BORN WITH, choice, environment, and can be abuse based.

SAME SEX BEHAVIOR, and HETERO STRAIGHT PREMARITAL Sexual behavior can be a choice.

There are same sex attraction(gay) people in my church, who do not do that gay sexual behavior, because they believe that God only wants sex done between a Male Husband, Female wife through marriage.

Whether they believe that or not, and whether they do the behavior or not is a CHOICE, not something they are BORN into.

And it's EQUALLY sinful for a straight, hetero sexual person to have premarital sex with the opposite gender.

Now I am not judging, condemning those that do the behavior, and I have gay, lesbian, and straight friends alike that are not religious, that have premarital sex, have gay sex, do those behaviors, that are still my friends, and that I do neither judge, condemn, condone, etc, their actions, behaviors

That said there are gay, same sex attraction people in the church that I goto, believe in, that don't do the behavior, and are in good standing in the church.

And there are straight, hetero people who have had premarital sex, sexual extra marital sexual affairs, etc, who are not in as good a standing in the Church that I goto as the gay people.

That said, my comment was NOT about Gay people.

My comment was about Transgenders. Transgenderism can be both a choice, like choosing to be a drag queen.

In fact the transgender friend of mine came out as gay first, then years later of being a DRAG QUEEN, which he said he did because he supposedly said he like dressing up and pretending to be a woman, then years later finally came out as a Transgender.

There are Transgenders who have both a penis, vagina, but that is extremely rare, and that is what the Term Transgender meant before it means what it means today.

Gender Disphoria Disorder is having a mental disability that causes you to think, pretend, believe that you are the opposite gender of the biological gender genitalia that you are born with.

That disorder is something your born with, not a choice.

But again there is a difference between being Gender Disphoria Disorder and doing the behavior.

Just because you think your the opposite gender of the biological gender your born with or the opposite of the genitalia, you were born with, does not mean you have to do the behavior of pretending to be a another, some other gender, and do things like compete in sports and have a unfair advantage over women, or use the female bathroom, when, if you have a penis.

That behavior, choices, is wrong.

But that said, I'm not going to condemn, force my beliefs on them, and will still be friends with them and will still like things about them AS PEOPLE.

But that said the Transgenders in Women Sports, and Transgenders with penis's being in female bathrooms are issues, problems of safety, fairness, preventing women from being raped(because there has been women RAPED because of SOME, NOT ALL, Transgenders with penis's going into female bathrooms and raping women(one example is a Transgender Boy with a penis went into the girls room and raped a girl. That was in Lauden County Virginia, and when the Father, girl went to the School, Principal, School board, etc, not only did they do nothing, nothing was done, but they also continued to allow Transgender Boys with penis's into the girls room and girls locker room, and wouldn't let the father be at School board meeting, and shut him down, was either arrested, or had police deal with him, was painted as a bigoted, domestic terrorist threat by the left, etc.

That kind of crap needs to stop. NO PENIS'S IN FEMALE BATHROOMS, AND NO PENIS'S allowed to compete in women's title 9 sports against women.

That is RIGHT, FAIR, AND IS A SAFETY ISSUE, AND PREVENTS, SOLVES A SAFETY ISSUE.

Women have the RIGHT to NOT have penis's walk into female bathrooms, not rape them in female bathrooms, and not compete against women, in title 9 sports.

If you have a penis you use the male bathroom and compete with men in sports.

If you have a vagina, you use a female bathroom.

That is the RIGHT way.

How George Washington, founding fathers would ROLL OVER IN GRAVES, over penis's being able to go into female bathrooms.

Note: The reason why I say, use terms like male, female, penis, vagina, over men, women because of how some transgenders, and some non transgenders, try to split technical hairs on, over gender terms.

If say penis can't go-to female bathrooms, instead of men can't go-to women's bathroom, then the meaning is CLEARER, and harder to split technical hairs over.

Using penis or vagina, or male, female, instead of men, women, etc, that shuts down such splitting of technical hair arguments and sillyness.

 

[mikalalas]

Mik...not a brick wall. My comprehenon is jjust fine. I digest what you have said. I can break down three paragrahs into one sentence. The republicans increased the debt. And I don't care if you call people libtards. And I very much appreciate your honesty.

Oh, I understand very much what Reagen sold. First two votes ever cast went to Reagen. Third went to GWB. So I understand "voo doo econimics". Sounds great in theory, and I will even accept maybe in the 70's it worked. But when you off shore money, lose a latge chunk of taxable dollars (when America was Great...1950's) the tax rate on the rich was 49%.

But the theory of supply side economics didn't match the times. We made China's economy. For profits we sent jobs over to China. So we lose that tax base from how many people. Then you build up the military and cut taxes, So short or long term creating enough revenue didn't offset their spending. So 69% of the increase of the debt came at the feet of republican Presidents. So I will say again. You can accurately say democrats are the party of tax. The republcans are the party of spend and not tax.

Republican party, conservative platform is to NOT SPEND, NOT WASTE MONEY, CUT SPENDING, CUT PORK BARREL SPENDING.

It's just that Republican office holders in more recent times, history, have either CONTINUED spending, or had democrats Continue to Spend, because the Republicans didn't have enough power, control, influence, persuasion, charisma, etc, to get the Democrats to stop spending, and they modern Republicans are CHICKENS.

That's why Trump was supposedly elected to supposedly clean the swamp.

But the reality is: Say Hi to the new Chief, Same as the old chief.

 

[mikalalas]

Stretch you can take any issue you want, big or small. The fact is three brilliant people, Paulson, Bernanke and Geitner led us out of a horrible situation. In doing so whoever was President was going to infuse government money into the economy. So I would make the same comment if McCain had a better VP candidate and became President.

By having to add stimulus they had to add to teh debt. And the whole banking situation could have been avoided with even small oversight from 2000 to 2008.

It was the Democrats, liberals who pushed, did that STIMULUS during the banking, housing, car, corporate, insurance, stock, COVID Crisis's.

The Republicans either did not vote, do those, or got outvoted by Democrats, Liberals who controlled Congress, or voting no on stimulus would have meant voting yes to a unsavory bill, because of how Congress, both parties like to bill stack lots of bills or provisions from different bills, into 1 bill where they would have to vote yes or no on something they do not want to vote yes or no on, in order to vote yes or no on something they do want to vote yes or no on, or because they were CHICKENS to confront liberal Democrats, or because they wouldn't use nuclear legal procedures, courts, supreme court, etc.

That's why, how STIMULUS got PASSED in the Congress.

 

[CougEd]

It was the Democrats, liberals who pushed, did that STIMULUS during the banking, housing, car, corporate, insurance, stock, COVID Crisis's.

The Republicans either did not vote, do those, or got outvoted by Democrats, Liberals who controlled Congress, or voting no on stimulus would have meant voting yes to a unsavory bill, because of how Congress, both parties like to bill stack lots of bills or provisions from different bills, into 1 bill where they would have to vote yes or no on something they do not want to vote yes or no on, in order to vote yes or no on something they do want to vote yes or no on, or because they were CHICKENS to confront liberal Democrats, or because they wouldn't use nuclear legal procedures, courts, supreme court, etc.

That's why, how STIMULUS got PASSED in the Congress.

Mik… I just want to make sure I have this right . During the Reagan years he cut taxes and spending yet the debt when up? Same with Bush 1 and 2? You are close to being on track here . So the democrats added the big spending bills during those 20 years and that’s how the debt went up ? Doesn’t the President have veto power in case that is what happened … which btw is your fantasy .

And one other thread you talked about the difference in transgender . Those who fake it and try it versus the ones who are born that way… my question is when we choose to discriminate against transgender how do we tell if they are fake or if they are born that way ?

 

[Observer11]

Then offer a better alternative candidate than Loren Culp...? Instead of complaining, find other solutions.

Stop voting based on the party system and start voting on the candidate alone. God forbid voters mix some red and blue when voting on their ballots!

Freid was a better option. The bizarre Washington State primary system did him in.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Freid was a better option. The bizarre Washington State primary system did him in.

Then offer a better alternative candidate than Loren Culp...? Instead of complaining, find other solutions.

Stop voting based on the party system and start voting on the candidate alone. God forbid voters mix some red and blue when voting on their ballots!

Freid was a better option. The bizarre Washington State primary system did him in.

Culp was and is a joke and an embarrassment to the Repugnant ones. Then after getting fired as police chief of BFE he moves to my current district and takes on Newhouse because Dan has a conscience and voted to impeach Trump. Thank Gawd that didn't work out. What a freak.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Has anyone ever considered that, rather than calling the inhabitants of the rural Eastern OR/Eastern WA 'rednecks', that just perhaps they have a basis for not wanting to be associated with their west of the Cascades counterparts?

Nope.

Conservatives: we don't care for what your politics, so we'll just remove ourselves, problem solved.
Libs: Our politics are for everyone and you'll do it and like it.

Yet only one side screams "fascism" ad nauseum.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Well, don’t forget that Washington decided that the political parties’ rights are more important than those of the voters, and made it so you had to choose between dems and republicans, and then could only vote for those candidates in the primaries.

Gee, wonder why...

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Well, don’t forget that Washington decided that the political parties’ rights are more important than those of the voters, and made it so you had to choose between dems and republicans, and then could only vote for those candidates in the primaries.

WTH are you talking about? Washington has had the "top 2" primary system for many years. You haven't had to choose Dem or Repugnant since 2004.

 

[95coug]

WTH are you talking about? Washington has had the "top 2" primary system for many years. You haven't had to choose Dem or Repugnant since 2004.

True. But they did it that way for several years.
And the top 2 isn’t really any better. Virtually guarantees that your candidates will be D or R (or both the same party), and almost eliminated the ability of any 3rd party to advance.

 

[Observer11]

The problem with the 'Top 2" approach is Democrats (or conversely Republicans) can stuff the ballot box for the least desirable of the Republicans. See also Loren Culp, thus guaranteeing the Democrat of the victory in the general when they switch back to their party affiliation.

So, in the case of Loren Culp, how many Democrats voted for him and push his totals above Fried (better candidate, possibility of defeating Jay Inslee)?

It's all a big game and those seeking power don't give a rip about their constituents.

https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/top2primaryfaq.aspx

 

[95coug]

The problem with the 'Top 2" approach is Democrats (or conversely Republicans) can stuff the ballot box for the least desirable of the Republicans. See also Loren Culp, thus guaranteeing the Democrat of the victory in the general when they switch back to their party affiliation.

So, in the case of Loren Culp, how many Democrats voted for him and push his totals above Fried (better candidate, possibility of defeating Jay Inslee)?

It's all a big game and those seeking power don't give a rip about their constituents.

https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/top2primaryfaq.aspx

Theoretically possible, but I don’t think that occurred to a significant degree.

Part of the Republicans’ problem was that they had 15 candidates (with at least 4 different versions of their platform), creating confusion and dividing their vote. Fried and Culp combined barely had half the votes Inslee did, and Culp had significantly more than Fried. Fried really didn’t get his name out nearly as well as Culp did either.

Reality was that neither of them had a chance of beating Inslee as long as he had King county in his pocket.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

The problem with the 'Top 2" approach is Democrats (or conversely Republicans) can stuff the ballot box for the least desirable of the Republicans. See also Loren Culp, thus guaranteeing the Democrat of the victory in the general when they switch back to their party affiliation.

So, in the case of Loren Culp, how many Democrats voted for him and push his totals above Fried (better candidate, possibility of defeating Jay Inslee)?

It's all a big game and those seeking power don't give a rip about their constituents.

https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/top2primaryfaq.aspx

pick your poison buddy..........