Sizemore for Governor?!!!!!
David Zeit
Ohmigosh! Mr. Bill is off & running. Does that mean before he was
"running" he was simply "off"? First it's Tonya Harding & Bob Packwood.
Then it's Monica Lewinsky goes to Lewis & Clark and then the White House
to get those coveted presidential knee pads. And then we have the
McMinnville scandal at Duniway Middle school where police employees &
teachers strip search little girls. And NOW Mr. Bill wants to be our
next governor. ROFLMAO!!!!!! Oregon well deserves the saying of
Oregon.....things look different here. Mr. Bill, I am told, is a son of
a logger, a house painter, a man with no governmental experience, AND a
graduate of Portland Bible College. But Mr. Bill does have energy. I
suspect if Mr. Bill gets elected he would do the work of three men, the
3 stooges!!!! OH, NO!!!!!! MR. BILL!!!!!!!!!
ejdu...@ix.netcom.com
In article <01bd35e1$0e629f60$55a0cacc@default>, "Dick Winningstad" <lem...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>Bill will get my vote. Perhaps he will screw up, but he will sure beat the
>business as usual crowd in power now.
Yes, I'm sure that if elected, Bill will screw up until there is nothing left
to screw up. Sizemore is the screwup of screwups.
Bob Tiernan
Thurston Russell wrote:
> David Zeit writes:
> > Mr. Bill, I am told, is a graduate of Portland Bible College.
> You some kind of religous bigot?
Thanks, Thurston, for pointing out Mr. Zeit's own
prejudices and fears.
Bob T.
Thurston
> David Zeit <dave...@teleport.com> writes:
> Mr. Bill, I am told, is a son of
> a logger, a house painter, a man with no governmental experience
One doesn't have a say over the profession of one's father. Anyway,
what's wrong with being a "son of a logger"?
House painting is less noble than being a lawyer?
You mean to say less experience solicting and taking bribes than
those who have?
> AND a graduate of Portland Bible College.
You some kind of religous bigot?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Winningstad
David Zeit <dave...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<34DFBE...@teleport.com>...
<<<<<<snip of Sizemore denigration>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bill will get my vote. Perhaps he will screw up, but he will sure beat the
business as usual crowd in power now. Twenty percent increase in the
State's budget, my ass!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Learn from Clio
Dick Winningstad lem...@teleport.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thurston
> ejdu...@ix.netcom.com writes:
> "Dick Winningstad" <lem...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >Bill will get my vote. Perhaps he will screw up, but he will sure beat the
> >business as usual crowd in power now.
> Yes, I'm sure that if elected, Bill will screw up until there is nothing left
> to screw up. Sizemore is the screwup of screwups.
>>>>
Guess Kitzenjammer will get the "doh!' vote...yours included.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek R. Larson
><34DFBE...@teleport.com>...
>
><<<<<<snip of Sizemore denigration>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>State's budget, my ass!
Sure, much better to dismantle government and let the wealthy run the
state. Whoops! We've already done that! I wonder what Sizemore's cut
will be?
-drl
--
________________________________________________________________________
Derek R. Larson Indiana University Department of History
"Eastward I go by force, but Westward I go free!" -H. D. Thoreau
-----------------------php.indiana.edu/~drlarson------------------------
Bob Tiernan
On Mon, 9 Feb 1998 ejdu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> "Dick Winningstad" wrote:
> > Bill will get my vote. Perhaps he will screw up, but he will
> > sure beat the business as usual crowd in power now.
> Yes, I'm sure that if elected, Bill will screw up until there is
> nothing left to screw up. Sizemore is the screwup of screwups.
Give us some example, please.
Bob T.
Skip Elliott Bowman
In or.general Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com> wrote:
Here's two that come to mind:
Measure 8: he ignored warnings that it wouldn't pass Constitutional muster.
Guidelines in civic personnel contracts are pretty specific regarding
changes, and no new information came to light during the lawsuit
challenging it. The challenge was upheld, and Measure 8 went down in flames.
Measure 50: an end run around the voters. Measure 47 passed and again
failed Constitutional muster. This time he was allowed to oversee the
rewrite of the measure, but only after the (mail-in) election had commenced.
Actually this could count as three screwups, since some people weren't
allowed to vote on a ballot measure after it had been revised. Something
about voting twice in a single election.
Bill Sizemore's whole platform, from Day 1, has been about economics.
Fine and dandy, but I need something more than opinions on other people's
accounting skills as a qualification for the state's highest office. What
would he, as Guv, do (not just say, but _do_) about affordable housing,
providing health care for low income families, land use planning and how
it pertains to salmon recovery and pollution, clear cuttting on state land,
race relations, and disaster relief? And how about banking and insurance
regulation reform, underage drinking, and RICO & Measure 11 laws?
It's easy to obfuscate an issue when you don't have an answer, and
Sizemore's been doing that in lieu of hard facts since 1988. While his
ballot measures always win the election, they don't always stand up in
court. As a candidate, he is obligated to show Oregonians how our lives
will improve under his watch, and I have yet to see any example of that.
But the campaign is young. Anyway, I hope that answers your question,
Bob.
Red beans and ricely yours,
Skip "El Fume"
skips...@XXteleport.com
Skip Elliott Bowman, Music & Travel
to reply, remove "X"s from address
"If music be the food of love, play on! Give me excess of it!"
Orsinio, "Twelfth Night"
Dick Winningstad
ejdu...@ix.netcom.com wrote in article
<6bonuv$h...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>...
> In article <01bd35e1$0e629f60$55a0cacc@default>, "Dick Winningstad"
> >
> >Bill will get my vote. Perhaps he will screw up, but he will sure beat
the
> >business as usual crowd in power now.
>
> Yes, I'm sure that if elected, Bill will screw up until there is nothing
left
> to screw up. Sizemore is the screwup of screwups.
>
Remember, be sure to leave out anything that may contain some substance.
dR.DavE
Thurston Rus...@teleport.com writes:
>> David Zeit <dave...@teleport.com> writes:
>> Mr. Bill, I am told, is a son of
>> a logger, a house painter, a man with no governmental experience
>One doesn't have a say over the profession of one's father. Anyway,
>what's wrong with being a "son of a logger"?
>House painting is less noble than being a lawyer?
>You mean to say less experience solicting and taking bribes than
>those who have?
I'm with Mr. Russell on this one. Don't judge a son by his father. I'm as
bad an auto mechanic as he is a computer programmer.
As for no governmental experience, well....I think you can hardly say that.
Mr. Sizemore has been in politics for years, runs one of the more
influential PACs in the state, and has both won and lost at the polls with
his ballot initiatives. That's hardly "no government experience".
If he truly had no government experience, Mr. Sizemore might be a lot more
attractive, depending on your attitude towards it. Myself, I don't
necessarily demand outright ignorance of The System, but the longer
someone's in the political stewpot, the more suspicious I get. I'm very
suspicious of Mr. Sizemore.
>> AND a graduate of Portland Bible College.
>You some kind of religous bigot?
I think he's suggesting that Mr. Sizemore is a religious bigot by virtue of
having attended a fundie college, based on his context. But you're right,
Mr. Zeit didn't seem to be suggesting that this is a Good Thing[TM].
My experience is that I tend to side with Mr. Zeit on this one. Some
Christians impress me with their tolerance. Most don't, and certainly most
who have attended fundie colleges aren't likely to be. That's just my
experience. YMMV. But knowing that he attended a fundie college would
certainly motivate me to ask questions concerning his tolerance when given
the opportunity. I hate the idea of a Bible-thumper in office, mainly
because I'd probably be a target/victim.
--
**dR.DavE**..............making the world safe for intelligent dance music
David L. Vessell | dr....@pobox.com | http://www.teleport.com/~drdav3
Media Director, Libertarian Party of Oregon | http://www.teleport.com/~lpo
Laurel Halbany
On 10 Feb 1998 04:59:35 GMT, "Dick Winningstad" <lem...@teleport.com>
wrote:
>Bill will get my vote. Perhaps he will screw up, but he will sure beat the
>business as usual crowd in power now.
I confess that the "change for the sake of change" candidacy doesn't
appeal to me, and while I'm all for shaking up power structures, I
don't like to do so at the expense of everything else.
c...@teleport.com
In article <6bq5t0$fs6$1...@user2.teleport.com>, drd...@user2.teleport.com
(dR.DavE) wrote:
> As for no governmental experience, well....I think you can hardly say that.
> Mr. Sizemore has been in politics for years, runs one of the more
> influential PACs in the state, and has both won and lost at the polls with
> his ballot initiatives. That's hardly "no government experience".
There is more to "government experience" than opposing taxes and running a
PAC. Governing means making decisions that are bound to irritate about
half the people or make them feel victimized. BS (now I do like that) has
yet to be in that position. I do not remember him even making an argument
about M8, so we do not know how he thinks except to believe that screwing
something up is reason enough to exist.
>
> My experience is that I tend to side with Mr. Zeit on this one. Some
> Christians impress me with their tolerance. Most don't, and certainly most
> who have attended fundie colleges aren't likely to be. That's just my
> experience. YMMV. But knowing that he attended a fundie college would
> certainly motivate me to ask questions concerning his tolerance when given
> the opportunity. I hate the idea of a Bible-thumper in office, mainly
> because I'd probably be a target/victim.
Second that. It will be interesting to get BS's entire program. But as
with Qutub, beware of obfuscation.
--------------------------
Fas est et ab hoste docerii.
--------------------------
C. L. Waltemath
David Zeit
Thurston, Rus...@teleport.com wrote:
>
> > David Zeit <dave...@teleport.com> writes:
>
> > Mr. Bill, I am told, is a son of
> > a logger, a house painter, a man with no governmental experience
>
> One doesn't have a say over the profession of one's father. Anyway,
> what's wrong with being a "son of a logger"?
>
> House painting is less noble than being a lawyer?
>
> You mean to say less experience solicting and taking bribes than
> those who have?
>
>
> You some kind of religous bigot?
>
There is nothing wrong with being the son of a logger. I merely stated a
fact. I find it interesting you took it so negatively. And, no, I am not
a religious bigot. But take 2 men. One is a graduate of Dartmouth and a
medical doctor. The other is a graduate of Portland Bible College. Which
institute do you think better prepares one to be governor? And don't you
agree we need one with intelligence to be governor? Doesn't it seem that
it takes more intelligence to be a medical doctor than a house painter?
I'm sure Mr. Bill is a fine father, husband, and neighbor. I just think
of the 2 candidates he is the least qualified.
David Zeit
Dick Winningstad wrote:
>
> David Zeit <dave...@teleport.com> wrote in article
> <34DFBE...@teleport.com>...
>
> <<<<<<snip of Sizemore denigration>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> State's budget, my ass!
>
> Learn from Clio
> Dick Winningstad lem...@teleport.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
you do? Unhappy with a Ford so by a chevy? Wouldn't it be smarter to
check out the chevy before you bought it? Don't we really need some
dialogue over taxes between the two men?
David Zeit
Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> Thurston Russell wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Mr. Bill, I am told, is a graduate of Portland Bible College.
>
> > You some kind of religous bigot?
>
> prejudices and fears.
>
> Bob T.
Actually, as a Christian, I think Portland Bible College is a fine
institute. But so is Dartmouth, the alma mater of our Governor. And I
believe one institution is superior in preparing one to be Oregon's
governor. Tell me, what fears and prejudices do you ascribe to me? Can
you be specific?
David Zeit
Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Feb 1998 ejdu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > "Dick Winningstad" wrote:
>
> > > sure beat the business as usual crowd in power now.
>
>
> > nothing left to screw up. Sizemore is the screwup of screwups.
>
>
Recall the problems Sizemore had with paying property taxes? He said it
was because he HAD the money but it was in a different checking acct.
Can one who can't keep his checkbook & property taxes under control run
the state of Oregon?
dR.DavE
>Dick Winningstad wrote:
>>
>> David Zeit <dave...@teleport.com> wrote in article
>> <34DFBE...@teleport.com>...
>>
>> <<<<<<snip of Sizemore denigration>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> Bill will get my vote. Perhaps he will screw up, but he will sure beat the
>> business as usual crowd in power now. Twenty percent increase in the
>> State's budget, my ass!
>Hmmm, so are you saying you prefer the devil you don't know to the devil
>you do? Unhappy with a Ford so by a chevy? Wouldn't it be smarter to
>check out the chevy before you bought it? Don't we really need some
>dialogue over taxes between the two men?
Why be satisfied with either Kitzhaber or Sizemore? There is another
alternative.
Thurston
> drla...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Derek R. Larson) writes:
> In article <01bd35e1$0e629f60$55a0cacc@default>,
> >David Zeit <dave...@teleport.com> wrote in article
> ><<<<<<snip of Sizemore denigration>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >Bill will get my vote. Perhaps he will screw up, but he will sure beat the
> >business as usual crowd in power now. Twenty percent increase in the
> >State's budget, my ass!
> Sure, much better to dismantle government and let the wealthy run the
> state. Whoops! We've already done that! I wonder what Sizemore's cut
> will be?
>>>>
If you're in Indiana, what the hell do you care?
In any event, if, assuming Sizemore is merely a tool of big money interests,
the same as Kitzenjammer, what difference will it make to get rid of the drug-
store cowboy and replace him someone who at least doesn't pretend to be
anything other than he is?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Winningstad
> >
> > <<<<<<snip of Sizemore denigration>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > Bill will get my vote. Perhaps he will screw up, but he will sure beat
the
> > business as usual crowd in power now. Twenty percent increase in the
> > State's budget, my ass!
> >
> > Learn from Clio
> > Dick Winningstad lem...@teleport.com
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> you do? Unhappy with a Ford so by a chevy? Wouldn't it be smarter to
> check out the chevy before you bought it? Don't we really need some
> dialogue over taxes between the two men?
>
in the State budget would have been vetoed by Sizemore. So I do believe I
know a little about Sizemore. And I am willing to change people in power
in order to stop the business as usual attitude that is in Salem now.
Why are you willing to stay with a Governor that is constantly complaining
about not having enough tax money?
How much would Governor Kitzhaber settle for anyway?
Dick Winningstad
Derek R. Larson <drla...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
<6bpms7$vkp$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
> In article <01bd35e1$0e629f60$55a0cacc@default>,
> Dick Winningstad <lem...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >David Zeit <dave...@teleport.com> wrote in article
> ><34DFBE...@teleport.com>...
> >
> ><<<<<<snip of Sizemore denigration>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >Bill will get my vote. Perhaps he will screw up, but he will sure beat
the
> >business as usual crowd in power now. Twenty percent increase in the
> >State's budget, my ass!
>
>
> state. Whoops! We've already done that! I wonder what Sizemore's cut
> will be?
>
David Zeit
> Why be satisfied with either Kitzhaber or Sizemore? There is another
> alternative.
>
> --
> **dR.DavE**..............making the world safe for intelligent dance music
> David L. Vessell | dr....@pobox.com | http://www.teleport.com/~drdav3
> Media Director, Libertarian Party of Oregon | http://www.teleport.com/~lpo
Ah! A VIABLE alternative?
David Zeit
YOU SAID........."In any event, if, assuming Sizemore is merely a tool
of big money interests,
the same as Kitzenjammer, what difference will it make to get rid of the
drug-
store cowboy and replace him someone who at least doesn't pretend to be
anything other than he is?"
I SAY.........Ah! but given that Mr. Bill is a tool of big business is
he not pretending to be other than he is?
David Zeit
what is Mr. Sizemore's proposal to finance schools, improve roads, fund
education, provide for public saftey, etc.? He seems very good at
tearing things apart. But any one can find fault. Let's see him propose
some hard & fast answers to problems.
Soren F. Petersen
In article <01bd35e1$0e629f60$55a0cacc@default>,
Dick Winningstad <lem...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>Bill will get my vote. Perhaps he will screw up, but he will sure beat the
>business as usual crowd in power now. Twenty percent increase in the
>State's budget, my ass!
You mean that deception, union-bashing, and flouting the Constituion
isn't business as usual?
--
###################################################################
Soren F. Petersen ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ so...@teleport.com
David Zeit
Laurel Halbany wrote:
>
> I was interested to see, in the O today, that Sizemore supports
> parental notification (for abortions) and tax breaks for business that
> offer daycare. Isn't he the "smaller government" candidate?
Very good observations. Let's see.....parental notification would
involve, uh, govenrment and more money/taxes. And if we give taxbraks to
businesses I wonder who will make up the lost revenue? Could it
be.....oh, I don't know......maybe.....YOU & I?!!!!! So Mr. Bill wants
to get the government more involved in our lives AND give tax breaks to
business. Hmmmmmmm. OH, NO, MR. BILL!!!!!!!!
curtis j. erickson
Bob T:
>> Yes, I'm sure that if elected, Bill will screw up until there is
>> nothing left to screw up. Sizemore is the screwup of screwups.
Give us some example, please.
Me:
I read an article about him a while ago to the effect that he's never run a
business that succeeded..he imported little plastic toys or something, and that
business failed (owing taxes) and then he did something with rugs and the same
thing happened..he never paid the taxes on either one of those businesses,
there was an IRS lien on him for a long time..he finally paid that off like
what, last year or the year before with money he says he got from selling some
property, but Willamette Week did a search and couldn't find any record of him
selling any property, so I wonder where he really got the money..so yeah, I
guess he's a screwup.
I suppose others will be able to come up with more and better examples. And I
probably could too if I cared to spend more than three minutes thinking about
it.
-Curt
Laurel Halbany
On 10 Feb 1998 22:55:20 GMT, "Dick Winningstad" <lem...@teleport.com>
wrote:
>More denigration and this topic is only a day old. And from Indiana too!
I didn't realize this was the Say Nice Things About Sizemore! thread,
although pointless personal attacks are, well, pointless.
Greg Rose
Dick Winningstad (lem...@teleport.com) wrote:
: >
: More denigration and this topic is only a day old. And from Indiana too!
Well Dick, let me tell you why I'll never vote for Mr. Sizemore, and
I won't denigrate or insult him or you, I'll just stick to my case.
Ok?
I live in a small, unincorporated community about 5 miles from St.
Helens in Columbia County called Yankton. Columbia County has less
than 40,000 people in the whole county. That's less people than
there are in the *city* of Hillsboro. The local school, Yankton
School, is a historic land grant school established in 1885 by
the good Baptist and staunchly Yankee folks who settled in this
area some years earlier. The funding levels for Yankton school
used to be a local matter. If the school needed money for anything
or if a new program needed to be implemented or if anything at all
pertaining to that school was needed then it was an entirely *local*
matter. We didn't ask Salem for permission and we didn't ask Salem
for money.
Thanks to your buddy Bill Sizemore, that is no longer the case. Recently,
when Yankton decided to become a charter school and needed funding to
do so, where do you think we had to go to get permission and funding?
The legislature and the governor in Salem. By the way, let me
thank the *democratic* representative from Columbia County, Jackie
Taylor, and the *democratic* governor of Oregon for helping local
parents make Yankton School one of the first charter schools in the
state. And that's *no thanks at all* to your guy, Bill Sizemore.
And it is the transfer of the funding of schools from local control
to Salem that ***really*** made me quite angry.
Do you see anything wrong with that? Or do you think this is another
unfair criticism?
By the way, the property tax limitation measures have done me *zilch*
amount of good. They've actually hurt me. My property tax rate is
1.15 percent (as it was before Measure 5 and Measure 47), and the only
thing I got out of Measure 5 was extra diligence from the the county
assessor to make sure that my property is always assessed at true
market value. With housing prices in this area going up by 9 percent
per year you can guess what's happened to my property tax bill.
Thanks to your buddy Bill Sizemore.
Look, if Bill Sizemore was a true conservative he would have figured out
a way to limit property taxes while at the same time retaining local
control of school funding. As it is he's just another patsy for
centralized control of school funding from Salem. And centralized
control *ain't* what true conservatives are about.
I'll refrain from calling Bill Sizemore a fraud when he claims that
he is a conservative for fear that you'll dismiss everything I've
said just because I'm taking a shot at him.
I'll save the invective for another post. But as far as I'm concerned
Bill Sizemore owes me a couple grand for the extra property taxes I've
had to pay since his bone headed measures passed.
greg rose
Mike Chapman
In article <34E11D...@teleport.com>,
David Zeit <dave...@teleport.com> writes:
>OH, NO, MR. BILL!!!!!!!!
I think you've come up with the perfect anti-sleazemore slogan.
hahahahah
Oh no, Mr. Bill!! SPLAT.
Larry Caldwell
In article <34e09972...@hermes.rdrop.com>,
myt...@twisty-little-maze.com (Laurel Halbany) wrote:
> I confess that the "change for the sake of change" candidacy doesn't
> appeal to me, and while I'm all for shaking up power structures, I
> don't like to do so at the expense of everything else.
It will be an interesting test to see how Sizemore's California-style
confrontational politics will play. I wonder who else the Republicans
are going to come up with. Does anyone have any favorite Republicans
they would like to see run for governor, or is Sizemore really the best
the party can do?
The guy doesn't have any qualifications for the job, except for the fact
that he gets his name in the paper. Has he ever held any public office?
I haven't heard that he's much as a businessman either.
The party may decide Kitz is unbeatable, and use Sizemore as cannon fodder,
but I bet there's a dozen republicans around who could take the nomination
away from him if they wanted to.
-- Larry
Robb Topolski
Greg Rose wrote in message <6brbf8$rfh$1...@news.rain.net>...
>Well Dick, let me tell you why I'll never vote for Mr. Sizemore, and
>I won't denigrate or insult him or you, I'll just stick to my case.
>Ok?
>
>I live in a small, unincorporated community about 5 miles from St.
>Helens in Columbia County called Yankton.
>
it]
>
>greg rose
This is what's great about or.politics -- thanks for a great post, Greg.
IMHO It would be impossible to re-write the state's tax laws using the
initiative system. The voters would confuse too easily and the opponents
could say anything they wanted and the voters would believe them. So the
only way to fight back using the initiative system is to target something
well and keep it relatively simple. The result is bad law, but the system
has been shocked and needs to adjust.
We're not yet through that adjustment.
Robb Topolski
Bob Tiernan
On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, curtis j. erickson wrote:
> Bob T:
> > somebody wrote:
> >> Yes, I'm sure that if elected, Bill will screw up until there is
> >> nothing left to screw up. Sizemore is the screwup of screwups.
>
> Give us some example, please.
>
> Me:
> I read an article about him a while ago to the effect that he's never
> run a business that succeeded
I think people said the same thing about Henry Ford
just before he started building cars.
Bob T.
talltom
> >
> > > > Bill will get my vote. Perhaps he will screw up, but he will
> > > > sure beat the business as usual crowd in power now.
> >
> >
> > > nothing left to screw up. Sizemore is the screwup of screwups.
> >
> > Give us some example, please.
> >
>
> Recall the problems Sizemore had with paying property taxes?
He didn't have any problem, he still has the property, lein free.
He said it
> was because he HAD the money but it was in a different checking acct.
So what?? It may be news to you but many people place property taxes as the absolute
LAST priority with good reason. Most people I know keep them 5-6 years in arrears
on purpose. So what's your supposed point?
> Can one who can't keep his checkbook & property taxes under control run
> the state of Oregon?
You haven't established that there was a problem, or that his property
taxes were out of control. As to how he could run the state, I'd hope it would
be by paying closer attention than you have.
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:21:26 GMT, lar...@teleport.com (Larry Caldwell)
wrote:
snip
>The party may decide Kitz is unbeatable, and use Sizemore as cannon fodder,
>but I bet there's a dozen republicans around who could take the nomination
>away from him if they wanted to.
Probably, but they're either running for something else or waiting
until Kitz finishes his second term. The Walden-Atkinson race should
make an interesting primary in the 2nd District.
jrw
dR.DavE
David Zeit <dave...@teleport.com> writes:
>Ah! A VIABLE alternative?
I'll be quite straightforward with you on this one. An alternative is as
viable as the voters choose to make them. How do you defive viable?
If by viable, you mean "likely to be elected", then if you choose not to
support an alternative candidate, it's a catch-22.
Richard Burke is a viable candidate. Contributions of money to his
campaign will make him more viable. He's articulate, he knows Oregon, and
he doesn't back down from a fight.
And if you have any questions about his stances or his candidacy, just
e-mail him. I'm sure he'd be happy to address any concerns you have. Just
zip something off to r...@rpb.com and I'm sure he'll get back to you in a
day or so. Can you say that about Kitzhaber or Sizemore?
dR.DavE
myt...@twisty-little-maze.com (Laurel Halbany) writes:
>I didn't realize this was the Say Nice Things About Sizemore! thread,
>although pointless personal attacks are, well, pointless.
Oh, I can think of all sorts of things to say about Mr. Sizemore that are
impersonal attacks. :-)
>I was interested to see, in the O today, that Sizemore supports
>parental notification (for abortions) and tax breaks for business that
>offer daycare. Isn't he the "smaller government" candidate?
Neither of them require bigger government, that I can discern. Am I
missing something?
c...@teleport.com
In article <6bsia9$op3$1...@user2.teleport.com>, drd...@user2.teleport.com
(dR.DavE) wrote:
> myt...@twisty-little-maze.com (Laurel Halbany) writes:
> >I was interested to see, in the O today, that Sizemore supports
> >parental notification (for abortions) and tax breaks for business that
> >offer daycare. Isn't he the "smaller government" candidate?
>
> Neither of them require bigger government, that I can discern. Am I
> missing something?
Your'e right. It should have been "more intrusive" government. But then
it would have taken more laws and regulations so the ORS would have been
thicker and that is "more".
Dick Winningstad
Greg Rose <gr...@black.kilchis.com> wrote in article
<6brbf8$rfh$1...@news.rain.net>...
> Dick Winningstad (lem...@teleport.com) wrote:
> : >
> : More denigration and this topic is only a day old. And from Indiana
too!
>
> Well Dick, let me tell you why I'll never vote for Mr. Sizemore, and
> I won't denigrate or insult him or you, I'll just stick to my case.
> Ok?
Yes that is good! What you have written below (and a couple of others too)
is much more persuasive than the name calling that has been floating around
here.
I am still not going to vote for Gov. Kitzhaber though. :-)
> I live in a small, unincorporated community about 5 miles from St.
> Helens in Columbia County called Yankton. Columbia County has less
> than 40,000 people in the whole county. That's less people than
> there are in the *city* of Hillsboro. The local school, Yankton
> School, is a historic land grant school established in 1885 by
> the good Baptist and staunchly Yankee folks who settled in this
> area some years earlier. The funding levels for Yankton school
> used to be a local matter. If the school needed money for anything
> or if a new program needed to be implemented or if anything at all
> pertaining to that school was needed then it was an entirely *local*
> matter. We didn't ask Salem for permission and we didn't ask Salem
> for money.
>
> Thanks to your buddy Bill Sizemore, that is no longer the case.
Recently,
> when Yankton decided to become a charter school and needed funding to
> do so, where do you think we had to go to get permission and funding?
I believe that even under the old system, permission from Salem would have
been necessary to become a charter school along with a host of other
changes that would require state permission. (I do admit to being on shaky
ground here.)
> The legislature and the governor in Salem. By the way, let me
> thank the *democratic* representative from Columbia County, Jackie
> Taylor, and the *democratic* governor of Oregon for helping local
> parents make Yankton School one of the first charter schools in the
> state. And that's *no thanks at all* to your guy, Bill Sizemore.
Bill Sizemore is not in power yet. And good for your Representative and the
Governor for seeing the writing on the wall by allowing your district to
try a charter school. Could vouchers be far behind?
> And it is the transfer of the funding of schools from local control
> to Salem that ***really*** made me quite angry.
>
> Do you see anything wrong with that? Or do you think this is another
> unfair criticism?
There are two sides to this issue of local funding. For instance Wisconsin
has a state controlled school system with little or no local funding. The
result is there is not the disparity of per-student spending that is in
place in Oregon. There are good things about state level control of
spending. I do agree with you that Oregon is still broken with the current
system though.
Gov. Kitzhaber has not (to my knowledge) proposed any new ideas on what to
do in Oregon. He has consistently backed tax increases, and has not
actively promoted new ideas such as vouchers instead all I have heard/read
is a desire to keep the current system in place. I suspect (again without
further knowledge) that your district's charter school was reluctantly
allowed to happen and will be torpedoed at the first opportunity (cynical
statement here).
> By the way, the property tax limitation measures have done me *zilch*
> amount of good. They've actually hurt me. My property tax rate is
> 1.15 percent (as it was before Measure 5 and Measure 47), and the only
> thing I got out of Measure 5 was extra diligence from the the county
> assessor to make sure that my property is always assessed at true
> market value. With housing prices in this area going up by 9 percent
> per year you can guess what's happened to my property tax bill.
I would blame your county government for grubbing for more money rather
than blaming the tax measures. Housing prices are not going up due to
property tax measures. Please consider what your property taxes would be
today if there were no limit placed on them.
> Thanks to your buddy Bill Sizemore.
> Look, if Bill Sizemore was a true conservative he would have figured out
> a way to limit property taxes while at the same time retaining local
> control of school funding. As it is he's just another patsy for
> centralized control of school funding from Salem. And centralized
> control *ain't* what true conservatives are about.
True enough in a broad sense. Sizemore should be given credit for getting
the issue on the table though. See above for comments in Wisconsin and
state funding. Somehow I find it hard to believe that Bill Sizemore is a
tool of the State School system.
> I'll refrain from calling Bill Sizemore a fraud when he claims that
> he is a conservative for fear that you'll dismiss everything I've
> said just because I'm taking a shot at him.
You have set up your case and can call him a fraud if you want (even while
denying you are calling him a fraud). I was criticizing the five line name
calling that erupted, not this type of post.
> I'll save the invective for another post. But as far as I'm concerned
> Bill Sizemore owes me a couple grand for the extra property taxes I've
> had to pay since his bone headed measures passed.
>
You are wrong in my opinion. Your elected government by not curbing its
spending and economizing but rather looking for increased funding and
constant whining about how its budgets are not growing fast enough are to
blame.
Remember, government spending has not decreased over the last decade. It
has only slowed down in its growth. Think about that. Spending has not
decreased. Only the growth has been slowed down.
dR.DavE
c...@teleport.com () writes:
>(dR.DavE) wrote:
>> myt...@twisty-little-maze.com (Laurel Halbany) writes:
>> >I was interested to see, in the O today, that Sizemore supports
>> >parental notification (for abortions) and tax breaks for business that
>> >offer daycare. Isn't he the "smaller government" candidate?
>>
>> Neither of them require bigger government, that I can discern. Am I
>> missing something?
>Your'e right. It should have been "more intrusive" government. But then
>it would have taken more laws and regulations so the ORS would have been
>thicker and that is "more".
Okay, well, let's look at that for a second in the light of the legitimate
purposes of government. As parents of guardians have jurisdiction over
their children and responsibility for them, failure to notify a parent of a
teen's abortion could easily be handled by litigation. No increase in
government needed, no increased intrusion.
I don't ever consider a tax break to be an increase in the size or
intrusiveness of government. While I would prefer general cuts in taxes
and services, I won't turn down a tax break to anyone.
Derek R. Larson
In article <01bd3710$70f5c000$8ca0cacc@default>,
Dick Winningstad <lem...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Gov. Kitzhaber has not (to my knowledge) proposed any new ideas on what to
>do in Oregon.
I for one am not so hot on "new" ideas on what to do in Oregon. Since the
early 1980s most of these "new" ideas have been mostly warmed-over
Orange-County Republican ranting about "big government" and attempts to
blame everything that goes wrong on state employees, immorality,
liberalism, etc. Not much substance there, and after more than a decade
of this crap passing for "new ideas" what do we have to show for it? I'd
much rather see a return to the "old ideas" of Oregon's own progressive
political tradition. Os West, Wayne Morse, Edith Green, Richard/Maurine
Neuberger, Tom McCall, Bob Straub, et al. represented a political
sensibility that was uniquely Oregonian in character, regardless of party
affiliation, and they all helped Oregon move forward without labeling a
segment of the population as enemies. Sizemore, Mobley, and company seem
to be good at ranting about evils, but have little (if anything) to offer
in the way of positive solutions.
As long as Oregon politics remain polarized, with the legislature
dominated by inexperienced, anti-government Republicans, I'd much
prefer having someone like Kitz there to at least veto their excesses.
Sizemore would be a nightmare.
-drl
--
________________________________________________________________________
Derek R. Larson Indiana University Department of History
"Eastward I go by force, but Westward I go free!" -H. D. Thoreau
-----------------------php.indiana.edu/~drlarson------------------------
Greg Rose
Robb Topolski (r...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
: This is what's great about or.politics -- thanks for a great post, Greg.
Why Thank you Robb!
: IMHO It would be impossible to re-write the state's tax laws using the
: initiative system. The voters would confuse too easily and the opponents
: could say anything they wanted and the voters would believe them. So the
: only way to fight back using the initiative system is to target something
: well and keep it relatively simple. The result is bad law, but the system
: has been shocked and needs to adjust.
: We're not yet through that adjustment.
Well, for appearances sake the legislature has to let the measures work
for a while, but I hope they do eventually address the issue of school
funding and return control to the local districts.
greg rose
Don Baccus
In article <6bso9c$b87$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
Derek R. Larson <drla...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>I'd
>much rather see a return to the "old ideas" of Oregon's own progressive
>political tradition. Os West, Wayne Morse, Edith Green, Richard/Maurine
>Neuberger, Tom McCall, Bob Straub, et al. represented a political
>sensibility that was uniquely Oregonian in character, regardless of party
>affiliation
These are the days I miss, too, when I voted for as many Republicans
as Democrats in most elections, because there was a broad middle of
relative financial conservatism, social liberalism, and an appreciation
for the unique character of our state on both sides of the aisle.
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
John Lienhart
> Without actually talking to the gentleman, I would bet that a 20% increase
> in the State budget would have been vetoed by Sizemore. So I do believe I
> know a little about Sizemore. And I am willing to change people in power
> in order to stop the business as usual attitude that is in Salem now.
> Why are you willing to stay with a Governor that is constantly complaining
> about not having enough tax money?
> How much would Governor Kitzhaber settle for anyway?
A certain amount of this 20% is undoubtedly used to help fund the local
schools that are asking for money from the state. The local funding is
less than what they feel they need due to the property tax measures
promoted by Sizemore. So the measures that Sizemore promoted have some
indirect responsibility for some of the 20% increase.
Increased funding is also needed to keep state schools from falling
further behind in their funding needs. Over the last few years we have
been stealing from higher education to cover the costs of the property
tax measures. Lots of our best students are leaving Oregon to go to
college because they do not see a state commitment to higher education.
David Zeit
That's sort of like the drunk who says. He has no drinking problem. He
drinks. He gets drunk. He falls down. NO PROBLEM! Some folks can't see
the problem with presented with it. Right, Talltom?
Larry Caldwell
In article <6bqihi$f38$1...@user2.teleport.com>,
drd...@user2.teleport.com (dR.DavE) wrote:
> Why be satisfied with either Kitzhaber or Sizemore? There is another
> alternative.
There quite well may be. It's far too early to start talking about
Kitz vs. Sizemore, when Sizemore doesn't even have the Republican
nomination. He has to win the primary before he can run against
Kitzhaber.
One hopes the Republicans can come up with somebody who has a few years
of legislative experience, or perhaps as Secretary of State. Contrary
to popular opinion, governing is a skilled occupation. Sizemore's
job experience as a lobbyist for OTU is pretty poor qualification for
the job.
-- Larry
Soren F. Petersen
In article <s3M400O5...@teleport.com>,
Larry Caldwell <lar...@teleport.com> wrote:
>The party may decide Kitz is unbeatable, and use Sizemore as cannon fodder,
>but I bet there's a dozen republicans around who could take the nomination
>away from him if they wanted to.
I wonder. So far, the Republicans haven't been able to find anyone
to take on the theoretically much-less-popular Senator Wyden. Do they
even have anyone else who could make a viable run?
(And for what it's worth, I seem to recall at least one Republican
saying, in this very group, that he hoped Sizemore would run for
statewide office, so that the inevitable ass-whupping would finish him
off for good.)
--
Thurston
> lar...@teleport.com (Larry Caldwell) writes:
[snip]
> One hopes the Republicans can come up with somebody who has a few years
> of legislative experience, or perhaps as Secretary of State. Contrary
> to popular opinion, governing is a skilled occupation. Sizemore's
> job experience as a lobbyist for OTU is pretty poor qualification for
> the job.
>>>>
And exactly what does "qualif[y]" a given individual to be governor?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Chapman
In article <6bso9c$b87$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
drla...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Derek R. Larson) writes:
> As long as Oregon politics remain polarized, with the legislature
> dominated by inexperienced, anti-government Republicans, I'd much
> prefer having someone like Kitz there to at least veto their excesses.
He didn't see fit to veto the marijuana recrim. I dunno what else
even needed vetoing.
> Sizemore would be a nightmare.
Yes, we can agree on that. He's a one-trick pony, that's for sure, and
that one trick is half-baked.
Derek R. Larson
In article <34E1FA...@spiritone.com>,
John Lienhart <the...@spiritone.com> wrote:
> Lots of our best students are leaving Oregon to go to
> college because they do not see a state commitment to higher education.
So are productive faculty and good administrators...if Oregon didn't have
a quality of life advantage over most other places even OU and OSU would
have trouble recruiting faculty. There's a widespread belief that Oregon
is scrapping its system for good and will never recover from this fiscal
crisis. That does not bode well for recruiting students or faculty in
future years, and will contribute to the flood of Oregon's "best and
brightest" leaving the state for education. The fact the Oregon's
business community does not recognize or complain about this situation is
perhaps the worst symptom of the problem...the educated work force that
drew them in won't be there in 10-15 years.
c...@teleport.com
In article <6bter4$b0i$1...@news1.teleport.com>, Thurston Rus...@teleport.com
wrote:
>
> Is the primary purpose of "education" to produce drones for the "work
> force"/"business community"?
Theyr'e the ones who employ and pay them. So the answer is yes.
Your use of the term "drones" indicates that you have a low opinion of
those who work for a living.
c...@teleport.com
In article <6btb3j$d9m$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
drla...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Derek R. Larson) wrote:
> In article <34E1FA...@spiritone.com>,
> John Lienhart <the...@spiritone.com> wrote:
> > Lots of our best students are leaving Oregon to go to
> > college because they do not see a state commitment to higher education.
>
> So are productive faculty and good administrators...if Oregon didn't have
> a quality of life advantage over most other places even OU and OSU would
> have trouble recruiting faculty. There's a widespread belief that Oregon
> is scrapping its system for good and will never recover from this fiscal
> crisis. That does not bode well for recruiting students or faculty in
> future years, and will contribute to the flood of Oregon's "best and
> brightest" leaving the state for education. The fact the Oregon's
> business community does not recognize or complain about this situation is
> perhaps the worst symptom of the problem...the educated work force that
> drew them in won't be there in 10-15 years.
Stupidity exists at all levels. You don't have to be joe six pack who
wants to pay no taxes while his idea of education for his kid is that his
kid plays high school football.
The corporations want low taxes and expect to continue to import their
higher paying employees from states that do not give them the tax breaks
(where they will not locate).
I guess that the children of Oregon will have to adjust to being the floor
sweepers. But then again, their parents did not pay too much in taxes.
c...@teleport.com
In article <6bt96s$6ol$2...@news1.teleport.com>, Thurston Rus...@teleport.com
wrote:
>
> And exactly what does "qualif[y]" a given individual to be governor?
Education, brains, common sense and experience. Same as any job.
talltom
Don Baccus wrote:
>
> In article <01bd374e$0414f120$877fa3ce@default>,
> Dick Winningstad <lem...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >Most of the screaming and name calling has been coming from the
> >anti-Sizemore crowd in this thread........
>
> We've got to counterbalance Sizemore's crybaby act somehow, don't we?
Well get used to it, you've got a lot of it ahead of you.
> >As for your wanting to quit the new ideas, when have vouchers been tried in
> >Oregon?
>
> Why do I want to pay for kids to be taught by Lon Mabon and friends?
DUH! This argument already took place in Oregon, in 1915. The KKK won,
and that is why we have public schools, to propagandize the young to
your preference at others expense. That's democracy, YOU LOOSE the minute
you can't muster 50%+1 on every issue. Good thing this country is a republic
huh?
> >When has a re-negotiation of contracts with the public unions been
> >seriously tried?
>
> Well, lets see, remember those big 'ole pension contributions that
> so many folks bitched about? That was the result of a win-win
> contract negotiation that led to lower pay for employees in return
> for a before-tax pension contribution. We all won because this is the
> most fed tax-efficient way to pay people (such contributions aren't
> taxable as income). Since negotiators work towards a real-income goal,
> paying non-taxable income leads to fewer dollars shelled out. Anyone
> who's runs a business knows this.
Well nice that you can bring up something close to the question, but that is not
an answer to the question. The incident you cite the whole argument was based
on contract negotiations won several years previous, which are irrelevant.
The only thing those were binding on is the contract period for THAT contract,
not ALL future ones. Silly Rabbit.
> >The time you are recalling dreaming of is still here but coming to an end
> >as the voters are finally realizing that all the money in the state would
> >not be enough for the old line politicians.
>
> Brave words. Wait until Sizemore has trouble breaking 35% in the
> general election.
Oh, I'm not to worried. Lefties being little more than canibles all it will
take is the same old crap they always go for, something for nothing at others
expense.
Scott Johnson
Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, curtis j. erickson wrote:
>
> > Bob T:
>
> > > somebody wrote:
>
> > >> nothing left to screw up. Sizemore is the screwup of screwups.
> >
> > Give us some example, please.
> >
> > I read an article about him a while ago to the effect that he's never
> > run a business that succeeded
>
> I think people said the same thing about Henry Ford
> just before he started building cars.
So, Bob....
Who ya gonna vote for? The republocrat Sizemore?
Or Burke?
Or "None Of The Above?" You can run a second "none of the above"
campaign.... :)
Scott
Bob Tiernan
On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, David Zeit wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> >
> > Thurston Russell wrote:
> >
> > > David Zeit writes:
> >
> >
> > > > Mr. Bill, I am told, is a graduate of Portland Bible College.
> >
> > > You some kind of religous bigot?
> >
> > Thanks, Thurston, for pointing out Mr. Zeit's own
> > prejudices and fears.
> >
> Actually, as a Christian, I think Portland Bible College is a fine
> institute. But so is Dartmouth, the alma mater of our Governor. And I
> believe one institution is superior in preparing one to be Oregon's
> governor. Tell me, what fears and prejudices do you ascribe to me? Can
> you be specific?
The comment certainly bears no resemblance to a
compliment, or even a piece of plain information.
Bob t.
Bob Tiernan
On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Laurel Halbany wrote:
> I confess that the "change for the sake of change" candidacy doesn't
> appeal to me
That's what government is all about for the masses. What
President (or legislative body) is going to look around
and say "Everything's fine. I'll just put my feet up?"
There's always problems, threats, crises, etc, mostly
fiction (except for the real ones, like Big Brother
growing out of yet another pair of pants).
Bob T.
Bob Tiernan
On 11 Feb 1998, Derek R. Larson wrote:
> So are productive faculty and good administrators...if Oregon didn't
> have a quality of life advantage over most other places...
Oh, c'mon! What states *don't* claim that they have a quality
of life worth preserving?
Bob T.
Bob Tiernan
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 c...@teleport.com wrote:
> > And exactly what does "qualif[y]" a given individual to be governor?
> Education, brains, common sense and experience. Same as any job.
Does it say that in the Oregon Constitution Charlie? No. If
it's so important, it would be there.
Bob T.
Bob Tiernan
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Scott Johnson wrote:
> So, Bob....
>
>
> Who ya gonna vote for? The republocrat Sizemore?
>
> Or Burke?
I'll never vote for Burke. Not after his Jim Crow-like
attempt to deprive convention delegates of their right
to vote - and complete with hired security guards
watching over us!
Sizemore seem to be the more honest one, doesn't he?
> Or "None Of The Above?" You can run a second "none of the above"
> campaign.... :)
>
This is best left for Feb 21.
Bob T.
Bob Tiernan
On 11 Feb 1998, John Lienhart wrote:
> Increased funding is also needed to keep state schools from falling
> further behind in their funding needs. Over the last few years we have
> been stealing from higher education to cover the costs of the property
> tax measures.
Doesn't mean we need more taxes. There are better options available, such
as "stealing" from Light Rail and OLCC.
Bob T.
Bob Tiernan
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
> (dR.DavE) wrote:
> > Richard Burke is a viable candidate. Contributions of money
> > to his campaign will make him more viable. He's articulate,
> > he knows Oregon, and he doesn't back down from a fight.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
He walked away from me like a whipped cur several times
on Sunday.
Then Joyce sed:
> BTW, how on earth did Burke happen, Dave? From comments made
> in the past, I thought Burke was persona non grata.
Shit happens. But he is still a zero, tho' if people
don't show up this is what happens. And then the people
who don't show up complain that the few smart people
there let it happen. What, are we supposed to vote
twice?
Bob T.
Scott Johnson
Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Scott Johnson wrote:
>
> > So, Bob....
> >
> >
> > Who ya gonna vote for? The republocrat Sizemore?
> >
> > Or Burke?
>
> I'll never vote for Burke. Not after his Jim Crow-like
> attempt to deprive convention delegates of their right
> to vote - and complete with hired security guards
> Sizemore seem to be the more honest one, doesn't he?
Don't know how honest or dishonest Sizemore is...
However, I do think he's a second-rate demagogue, and I don't think his
initiatives have done the citizens of Oregon a hell of a lot of good.
They've stripped away local control, and really haven't given Oregon
citizens that big of a tax windfall. The big winners have been big
business.
On economic issues, he's a supply-sider, not a Libertarian.
On social issues, he's a big unknown at this point. He's confessed to
being pro-life; whether he would actively advocate and support pro-life
legislation as governor, I dunno. As far as the WOD goes, I kinda
suspect (but am not sure) that he makes Kitz look like Phil Stanford.
> > Or "None Of The Above?" You can run a second "none of the above"
> > campaign.... :)
> >
>
> This is best left for Feb 21.
What, besides the next or.politics lunch, would be on the 21st???
At any rate, my vote for governor is also wide open at this point.
Sizemore it probably will not be, though.
Jack Roberts, where are you????
Scott
Scott Johnson
Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
>
> > (dR.DavE) wrote:
>
> > > Richard Burke is a viable candidate. Contributions of money
> > > to his campaign will make him more viable. He's articulate,
> > > he knows Oregon, and he doesn't back down from a fight.
> on Sunday.
Under what circumstances?
> Then Joyce sed:
>
> > BTW, how on earth did Burke happen, Dave? From comments made
> > in the past, I thought Burke was persona non grata.
> Shit happens. But he is still a zero, tho' if people
> don't show up this is what happens. And then the people
> who don't show up complain that the few smart people
> there let it happen. What, are we supposed to vote
> twice?
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
If you Libs can't get your act together sufficiently to keep a Burke
(whom lots of Libs are on record as not liking) from getting a bunch of
his buddies together and showing up at the nominating convention and
getting nominated for governor; what the HELL makes you think you can
organize sufficiently to defeat the Republicans or Democrats?
When's your next convention? I and 18 of my buddies may well register
as Libertarian, show up, and nominate Ralph Nader in abstentia. (Just
kidding.) It seems that the critical mass to secure a nomination in
Lib-land is RIDICULOUSLY low...
Hell, ya got a competent computer geek in Dave. Ever thought of setting
up a virtual convention, with several remote sites connected by the net
(or some other mechanism), so folks out in Eastern Oregon (or Southern
Oregon, or elsewhere that's distant from PDX) can participate without
having to travel to Portland.
Scott
Don the Norski
Dick, you usually have made sense in your posts. I have admired your logic and common sense. But, sir, you drifted beyond those realms with your stated support of the single issue candidate, Mr. Sizemore.
Surely, Oregon needs to deal with increases in population, crumbling infrastructure, school funding, and other needs which have been put off ever since BM 5 hit the street! We can not continue to keep Oregon a place where we all can hold our heads high, where we can be proud of our accomplishments instead of afraid of how we'll be able to fund and make necessary repairs, if we elect someone who wants to "fix" what ain't broke!
It takes money to make money, as you well know. Oregon can't expect to continue as a healthy enterprise if it does not take care of its investments already made: its infrastructure, its citizens and their economic plights, and its children.
Planning for the future does not mean stopping needed investments today, not only in repairs and maintenance, but, dare I say, improvements. One need only take a look at our thousands of bridges in the state to get a clue what we're looking at as far as highway maintenance that's long overdue!
I'd trust my future anytime with a man who holds a doctorate, is intellegent, amiable, and has a proven track record of working FOR Oregon over the years in a cooperative bi-partisan approach. I couldn't get that with the candidate you support.
Please reconsider, before you influence others who may not be thinking clearly when they read your messages of support.
Don the Norski
Dick Winningstad <lem...@teleport.com> wrote in article <01bd35e1$0e629f60$55a0cacc@default>...
>
>
> David Zeit <dave...@teleport.com> wrote in article
> <34DFBE...@teleport.com>...
>
> <<<<<<snip of Sizemore denigration>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Bill will get my vote. Perhaps he will screw up, but he will sure beat the
> business as usual crowd in power now. Twenty percent increase in the
> State's budget, my ass!
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Learn from Clio
> Dick Winningstad lem...@teleport.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
Don the Norski
That's just it!
it AINT just the taxes!
There's so MUCH more to running a state effectively than a single issue candidate can fathom.
We need someone who can address all Oregon's concerns.
Keep the Kitz!
Don the Norski
David Zeit <dave...@teleport.com> wrote in article <34E0BD...@teleport.com>...
> Dick Winningstad wrote:
> >
> > David Zeit <
dave...@teleport.com> wrote in article
> > <34DFBE...@teleport.com>...
> >
> > <<<<<<snip of Sizemore denigration>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > Bill will get my vote. Perhaps he will screw up, but he will sure beat the
> > business as usual crowd in power now. Twenty percent increase in the
> > State's budget, my ass!
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Learn from Clio
> > Dick Winningstad
lem...@teleport.com
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Hmmm, so are you saying you prefer the devil you don't know to the devil
> you do? Unhappy with a Ford so by a chevy? Wouldn't it be smarter to
> check out the chevy before you bought it? Don't we really need some
> dialogue over taxes between the two men?
>
Don the Norski
The incident you cite the whole argument was based
> on contract negotiations won several years previous, which are irrelevant.
> The only thing those were binding on is the contract period for THAT contract,
> not ALL future ones. Silly Rabbit.
Evidently you failed to notice what the courts said about those contracted employment conditions. Measure 8 was tossed out as unconstitutional on ALL aspects. Read the decisions.
Don the Norski
Thurston
> drla...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Derek R. Larson) writes:
[snip]
> The fact the Oregon's business community does not recognize or
> complain about this situation is perhaps the worst symptom of the
> problem...the educated work force that drew them in won't be there
> in 10-15 years.
> Derek R. Larson Indiana University Department of History
>>>>
So what?
Is the primary purpose of "education" to produce drones for the "work
force"/"business community"?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Winningstad
Derek R. Larson <drla...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
<6bso9c$b87$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
> In article <01bd3710$70f5c000$8ca0cacc@default>,
> Dick Winningstad <lem...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >Gov. Kitzhaber has not (to my knowledge) proposed any new ideas on what
to
> >do in Oregon.
>
>
> I for one am not so hot on "new" ideas on what to do in Oregon. Since
the
> early 1980s most of these "new" ideas have been mostly warmed-over
> Orange-County Republican ranting about "big government" and attempts to
> blame everything that goes wrong on state employees, immorality,
> liberalism, etc. Not much substance there, and after more than a decade
> of this crap passing for "new ideas" what do we have to show for it?
Care to expound on what new ideas you are speaking of that have been
implemented to the detriment of the state?
> I'd
> much rather see a return to the "old ideas" of Oregon's own progressive
> political tradition. Os West, Wayne Morse, Edith Green, Richard/Maurine
> Neuberger, Tom McCall, Bob Straub, et al. represented a political
> sensibility that was uniquely Oregonian in character, regardless of party
> affiliation, and they all helped Oregon move forward without labeling a
> segment of the population as enemies. Sizemore, Mobley, and company seem
> to be good at ranting about evils, but have little (if anything) to offer
> in the way of positive solutions.
Most of the screaming and name calling has been coming from the
anti-Sizemore crowd in this thread........
As for your wanting to quit the new ideas, when have vouchers been tried in
Oregon?
When has a re-negotiation of contracts with the public unions been
seriously tried?
When has our government actually been made smaller to see the effect of
greater amounts of private capital in the economy?
The time you are recalling dreaming of is still here but coming to an end
as the voters are finally realizing that all the money in the state would
not be enough for the old line politicians.
> As long as Oregon politics remain polarized, with the legislature
> dominated by inexperienced, anti-government Republicans, I'd much
> prefer having someone like Kitz there to at least veto their excesses.
> Sizemore would be a nightmare.
Politics has always been polarized. Your side just won most of the time
earlier. Now it is not so often. One advantage to a polarized executive and
legislative branch is that the citizens do not get the "benefits" of either
sides programs and are likely to be left alone more.
Don Baccus
In article <6btb3j$d9m$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
Derek R. Larson <drla...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>The fact the Oregon's
>business community does not recognize or complain about this situation is
>perhaps the worst symptom of the problem...the educated work force that
>drew them in won't be there in 10-15 years.
Howard Vollum and Tektronix get direct credit for the founding of the
Oregon Graduate Institute, which was created to provide gradutate
opportunities in engineering, physics, etc in the Portland area.
The seemingly logical thing - upgrading PSU grad programs - has
long been blocked by the other Us, in particular OSU. The high tech
community has fought for better engineering and other science programs
at PSU, with limited success, for a long time.
Currently, there are plans afoot to fund programs at WSU (the Vancouver
branch) because the Washington system's much more open to doing so
than the Oregon system. OSU, in particular, has been far more interested
in protecting their turf and large engineering school than in best
serving the needs of our kids and the largely PDX-area businesses which
would love to employ them while they're in (especially) grad school.
None of this is particularly germane to a discussion on the abandonment
of higher ed funding in this state. Our new slogan will be "Oregon - it
looks like Mississippi here".
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
Don Baccus
In article <01bd374e$0414f120$877fa3ce@default>,
Dick Winningstad <lem...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Care to expound on what new ideas you are speaking of that have been
>implemented to the detriment of the state?
Cutting of funding for higher ed, that among other things keeps
salary levels too low to attract the best and brightest professors,
particularly in fields like engineering and computer science where
industry salaries are high. Tuition levels are high, I'm depressed by
what today's kids have to borrow in order to go to our state schools.
Why is this detrimental? Why shouldn't we skimp on higher ed?
Well, among other things, kids who are bright enough to shine in
their chosen field of study simply go to school elsewhere - and are
likely to live elsewhere afterwards. Making Oregon less competitive.
We're going to get Japan'd by 2/3 or 3/4 of the states if we continue
down this path.
>Most of the screaming and name calling has been coming from the
>anti-Sizemore crowd in this thread........
We've got to counterbalance Sizemore's crybaby act somehow, don't we?
>As for your wanting to quit the new ideas, when have vouchers been tried in
>Oregon?
Why do I want to pay for kids to be taught by Lon Mabon and friends?
>When has a re-negotiation of contracts with the public unions been
>seriously tried?
Well, lets see, remember those big 'ole pension contributions that
so many folks bitched about? That was the result of a win-win
contract negotiation that led to lower pay for employees in return
for a before-tax pension contribution. We all won because this is the
most fed tax-efficient way to pay people (such contributions aren't
taxable as income). Since negotiators work towards a real-income goal,
paying non-taxable income leads to fewer dollars shelled out. Anyone
who's runs a business knows this.
>The time you are recalling dreaming of is still here but coming to an end
>as the voters are finally realizing that all the money in the state would
>not be enough for the old line politicians.
Brave words. Wait until Sizemore has trouble breaking 35% in the
general election.
--
Derek R. Larson
>Politics has always been polarized. Your side just won most of the time
>earlier. Now it is not so often. One advantage to a polarized executive and
>legislative branch is that the citizens do not get the "benefits" of either
>sides programs and are likely to be left alone more.
You're simply wrong here Dick. Politics were not always polarized in
Oregon, and much of our landmark legislation had bi-partisan support.
McCall and Straub ran against each other in '66, but had almost identical
positions on critical issues (ditto in '70). Straub served as Treasurer
during both those terms and the two worked fairly well together (this was
when the treasurer had a great deal more influence on state politics than
today. During that period (and several other times I can pick out if you
like) moderates from both parties supported progressive legislation that
helped shape Oregon into what it is today. During other times moderates
from both parties came together to oppose those from either side that
would sell out to bigotry, robber barons, or whatever threat presented
itself (as with the KKK in the 1920s).
For those self-styled libertarians that detest any government, the current
state of affairs is probably fine. For those of us who consider
government an expression of the people and feel that collective action can
make things better, it's not so good. But putting an anti-government
demagogue into office just to spite the tax collector is simply foolish,
by anyone's measure. That kind of stunt may work on the county level in
Wyoming or Nevada, but in a state of 3+ million facing severe economic and
growth challenges in the next century, it strikes me as a good way to toss
our children's future in the trash.
As it stands most of my friends from Oregon, all in their early-mid 30s
and well educated, either left for college or left soon afterward. I
doubt any of them will return until things get worked out; even the annual
visits to see family can get depressing when you see everything either
decaying, closed down, or covered over with new subdivisions-- sort of
like the early 80s, but with new people coming in to fill up the open
spaces.
-drl
--
________________________________________________________________________
Derek R. Larson Indiana University Department of History
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
On 11 Feb 1998 08:12:20 -0800, drd...@user2.teleport.com (dR.DavE)
wrote:
snip
>Richard Burke is a viable candidate. Contributions of money to his
>campaign will make him more viable. He's articulate, he knows Oregon, and
>he doesn't back down from a fight.
BTW, how on earth did Burke happen, Dave? From comments made in the
past, I thought Burke was persona non grata.
jrw
Don Baccus
In article <34E25C...@espace.dcl.com>,
talltom <tal...@espace.dcl.com> wrote:
>Well nice that you can bring up something close to the question, but that is not
>an answer to the question. The incident you cite the whole argument was based
>on contract negotiations won several years previous, which are irrelevant.
>The only thing those were binding on is the contract period for THAT contract,
>not ALL future ones. Silly Rabbit.
I don't think you actually made a point here, at least I can't find one. Because,
after all, the initiative which was struck down did break the contract which was
currently in force, as well as limit future negotations.
You ignore my point that the pension contribution was a money saver for the taxpayers
of this state (shifting a little tax burden to the other 49 states, but, hey, we
hate Californians anyway).
Thurston
> c...@teleport.com () writes:
> Thurston Rus...@teleport.com wrote:
> > And exactly what does "qualif[y]" a given individual to be governor?
> Education, brains, common sense and experience. Same as any job.
>>>>
What planet do you hail from (really)? If that were the case, how did
William Jefferson Clinton get to be President? Let alone Harding,
Ford, Wilson, etc....? No political position requires any of the above,
merely the capacity to lie well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Chapman
In article <34E25C...@espace.dcl.com>,
talltom <tal...@espace.dcl.com> writes:
> That's democracy, YOU LOOSE the minute
> you can't muster 50%+1 on every issue. Good thing this country is a republic
> huh?
Tom, time and time again I've explained why this usage of republic and
democracy is confusing at best. Republic is NOT (NOT NOT NOT) a term
that excludes governments without written constitutions or protections
for minorities. Nor does it exclude direct democracy. The words
definitely have distinct meanings, but the way you use them would make
reading Jefferson very confusing indeed.
Please, just stop. The United States is a Constitutional, Representative,
Federal Republic. Just "republic" doesn't cut it. The theft of this word
concerns me.
Thurston
> > force"/"business community"?
> Your use of the term "drones" indicates that you have a low opinion of
> those who work for a living.
>>>>
As opposed to what, politicians...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thurston
> mi...@paranoia.com (Mike Chapman) writes:
> drla...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Derek R. Larson) writes:
[snip]
> > Sizemore would be a nightmare.
> Yes, we can agree on that. He's a one-trick pony, that's for sure, and
> that one trick is half-baked.
>>>>
Half-baked? You mean partially cooked?
Come to think of it, perhaps a potato would make the ideal candidate
for governor... Who doesn't like spuds?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Chapman
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980211...@user1.teleport.com>,
Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com> writes:
> Doesn't mean we need more taxes. There are better options available, such
> as "stealing" from Light Rail and OLCC.
Don't mess with my pretty trains, Bob!! I gotta admit I'm quite a fan
of trains, and have an ever-growing collection of model passenger trains.
From a purely selfish perspective, I'm happy to have the trains and
pay my share of the taxes for them, such as it may be.
However, I drive much more often than I ride the trains, and the
highways are in BAD shape. These grooves from the studded tires
need to be addressed; they are a serious safety hazard, especially
in the rain. Is this the original surface on 205 and 84 or something??
How about *charging* people for the use of studded tires? $50 per year
per axle sounds good. A lot more for commercial vehicles. I guess
they changed the rules to require softer metal or something?
I'll say again that I think the state should have but one tax, the
income tax, and distribute the money to the general fund, the locality
in which you work and the locality in which you live in fixed
percentages. If your localities don't want all of the money, you get
a lower tax rate.
I find the property tax, rent on that which you supposedly own, to be
pretty ridiculous. Old folks who worked hard all of their lives to
buy their house and don't have much more money coming in sure don't
deserve to get slammed by the government every year as the value of
their home rises. The income tax is much less likely to cause undue
hardships - if you're making money, you pay, if not, they leave you
alone. Sales tax is just plain dumb as well, when there's already
an income tax. It doesn't make sense to hit your money coming and
going. Take your pick, politicians, you can't have it all.
Of course, one tax would mean a lot less bureaucracy than three,
and we couldn't have *that* kind of efficiency, now could we?
Mike Chapman
In article <34E26F...@nospam.aracnet.com>,
Scott Johnson <sj_n...@nospam.aracnet.com> writes:
> So, Bob....
>
> Who ya gonna vote for? The republocrat Sizemore?
>
> Or Burke?
>
> campaign.... :)
Last year my slogan was "Brought to you by the Vote 7.62MM for Real Change
Committee," or something along those lines. This year I think it will
be "Write in ME for Oregon Governor for Real Change!"
How do they work that, anyway? I just voted for the first time in Oregon
during this last election (goddamned wackos and their laws about other
people's bodies), so I haven't seen a proper ballot yet. I mean, do
you just put "Scott Johnson" in the space provided? I assume that there
is in fact a provision for write-in candidates, I seem to remember
something like that being on the ballot, actually, unused of course.
So how do they identify which fellow you're actually writing in? I guess
if there's a significant enough campaign to win (as if), they'll know who it
is.
I gotta say I found the paper ballot kind of quaint at first, but that
got me to wondering about my votes in virginia that just disappeared
into the machine. Made me want to sign my name on the ballot.
Bill Shatzer
John Lienhart (the...@spiritone.com) writes:
>> Without actually talking to the gentleman, I would bet that a 20% increase
>> in the State budget would have been vetoed by Sizemore. So I do believe I
>> know a little about Sizemore. And I am willing to change people in power
>> in order to stop the business as usual attitude that is in Salem now.
>> Why are you willing to stay with a Governor that is constantly complaining
>> about not having enough tax money?
>> How much would Governor Kitzhaber settle for anyway?
>
> A certain amount of this 20% is undoubtedly used to help fund the local
> schools that are asking for money from the state. The local funding is
> less than what they feel they need due to the property tax measures
> promoted by Sizemore. So the measures that Sizemore promoted have some
> indirect responsibility for some of the 20% increase.
And a whole bunch more was required for the extra prisons and
prison guards required under the Measure 11 mandatory sentences.
Another "problem" I don't see sleazemore addressing. If ya'
wanna put the bad guys away for a _very_ long time, it's
gonna cost ya' to do so - a fact which seems totally lost on
the sleazemore.
Peace and justice,
--
Bill Shatzer- bsha...@orednet.org -or- aw...@freenet.carleton.ca
"If you can see the tracers, the little piss-ants have missed you."
Chief Warrant Officer Emet "Stoney" Parker
Mike Chapman
In article <6bu5km$k...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
aw...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Shatzer) writes:
> And a whole bunch more was required for the extra prisons and
> prison guards required under the Measure 11 mandatory sentences.
It concerns me that these mandatory sentences are even required. They
aren't exactly severe for most of the covered crimes.
> Another "problem" I don't see sleazemore addressing. If ya'
> wanna put the bad guys away for a _very_ long time, it's
> gonna cost ya' to do so - a fact which seems totally lost on
> the sleazemore.
Sooner or later some gung-ho anti-crime type is going to seize upon
the idea of letting the druggies out to make room for real criminals.
I sure won't hold my breath until it happens though.
Would it even take much courage for a prominent political figure to
come out and say such a thing? Surely, more of them believe it
than are willing to say it. If they fear public opinion, they should
realize they power they have in molding it.
Mike Chapman
In article <6bu8sg$3cf$1...@news1.teleport.com>,
Thurston Rus...@teleport.com writes:
>> mi...@paranoia.com (Mike Chapman) writes:
>> Yes, we can agree on that. He's a one-trick pony, that's for sure, and
>> that one trick is half-baked.
>
> Half-baked? You mean partially cooked?
Yes, of course, surely you've heard the expression.
> Come to think of it, perhaps a potato would make the ideal candidate
> for governor... Who doesn't like spuds?
Just by sprouting, a potato could come up with more interesting
political ideas than Sleazemore will have in a lifetime. The man
gives me bad vibes, if you catch my drift. There's something *wrong*
with him.
I'm gonna throw my vote at whatever the libs have to offer, since neither
Kitzhaber nor Sleazemore should be in office. Hell, if it looks like
Sleaze is picking up support, I may be forced to vote for the other
asshole. I'll spit on the ballot, though.
Derek R. Larson
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980211...@user1.teleport.com>,
Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com> wrote:
>On 11 Feb 1998, Derek R. Larson wrote:
>
>> So are productive faculty and good administrators...if Oregon didn't
>> have a quality of life advantage over most other places...
>
>Oh, c'mon! What states *don't* claim that they have a quality
>of life worth preserving?
Who cares what states claim? It's the public (and media) perception that
counts, and if you look back over the last 50 years of national press on
Oregon, you'll find that there's a clear sense that Oregon is a better
place to live than just about everywhere, at least for certain types of
people. Among academics that are interested in living in the West, Eugene
and Boulder have near mythical status, believe me.
-derek
dR.DavE
jrw*********@********aracnet.com (Joyce Reynolds-Ward) writes:
>drd...@user2.teleport.com (dR.DavE) wrote:
>snip
I'm trying to write this without either attacking him or apoligizing for
him.
The short answer: Times change, memories fade, new members come in, people
mature. Richard is a politician in a party that hates politicians.
The long answer: There's always been a strong dichotomy in the LPO over
Mr. Burke, particularly concerning his personal decisionmaking at
particular points in the past. There have been instances where he or his
allies have made poor--or at least undiplomatic--decisions, sometimes
violating the spirit of the law in order to uphold the letter of it. He
has also had attributed to him the bad decisions of others.
For every instance where he's been involved with something unpopular, there
are two stories. Mr. Burke is happy to go on at great length, quite
eloquently and persuasively, about his side of the story. The other side
of the story can be garnered from folks such as Bob Tiernan, Tom O'Connor,
and Dan van der Ploeg, also at great length and quite eloquently. Both are
equally persuasive in their telling of their side of the story. I
personally am convinced that both sides are right, from their own points of
view.
It's hard to be neutral concerning Mr. Burke. I've tried to be neutral,
but it appears that I'm failing because neither side is pleased or
satisfied with my neutrality. Richard Burke is a charismatic personality,
a persuasive debater, a ham, a politician (by his own admission) in a
political party that despises politicians. He loves politics. He's an
energetic campaigner. In a political party notorious for drawing little
press, he has accumulated admirable press coverage by comparison. He never
backs down from a battle, and he has nerves of steel.
He's done good things for the LPO--press coverage and members (he claims to
have recruited upwards of 40 people into the party). He's done things that
to outsiders would make sense but to Libertarians were offensive, such as
raising the annual dues. He's supported things that seemed like a good
idea at the time but failed, such as the KUIK radio ad campaign. He's
supported the bad, or at least unpopular, decisions of others, such as the
bad decision concerning the credentialing of delegates at the May '96
convention, which would have excluded a couple dozen delegates from voting.
And he advocated the deeply unpopular attempt to use L. Neil Smith's 5
percent manouevre on Bill Witt by pushing NOTA (none of the above) instead
of Richard Johnson in the 1st Congressional race.
All of the issues concerning Mr. Burke are internal LPO matters. To my
knowledge, aside from the overzealous move of inviting Bill Witt to a
Libertarian nominating convention in '96 during his advocacy of NOTA, he
has never taken his controversies outside the LPO.
He has good ideas. He is fully capable of being the governor of Oregon.
Even his enemies would probably admit that he would make a better governor
than either Kitzhaber or Sizemore.
On the convention floor, he spoke eloquently and directly answered
questions. Most of the people who voted to nominate him were swayed by his
floor speech. Nobody spoke against him, and the one speech in support of
NOTA was, in my opinion, lukewarm at best, and might have even been
construed as a half-hearted endorsement (the speaker in favour of NOTA
eventually went on to vote for Burke). I was personally shocked and
surprised that nobody spoke against him, considering how many people in the
room were opposed to his nomination.
Richard Burke is the Libertarian Party's nominee for governor, and at this
point I support his candidacy fully and to the best of my ability. I'm
looking forward to an interesting and fruitful campaign season.
--
**dR.DavE**..............making the world safe for intelligent dance music
David L. Vessell | dr....@pobox.com | http://www.teleport.com/~drdav3
Media Director, Libertarian Party of Oregon | http://www.teleport.com/~lpo
c...@teleport.com
In article <6bto70$i1a$3...@news1.teleport.com>, Thurston Rus...@teleport.com
wrote:
> > c...@teleport.com () writes:
> > Thurston Rus...@teleport.com wrote:
>
> > > And exactly what does "qualif[y]" a given individual to be governor?
>
> > Education, brains, common sense and experience. Same as any job.
>
> >>>>
>
> What planet do you hail from (really)? If that were the case, how did
> William Jefferson Clinton get to be President? Let alone Harding,
> Ford, Wilson, etc....? No political position requires any of the above,
> merely the capacity to lie well.
>
The question was my opinion of "qualifications". Thats what I look for.
--------------------------
Fas est et ab hoste docerii.
--------------------------
C. L. Waltemath
dR.DavE
Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com> writes:
>On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
>> (dR.DavE) wrote:
>
>> > Richard Burke is a viable candidate. Contributions of money
>> > to his campaign will make him more viable. He's articulate,
>> > he knows Oregon, and he doesn't back down from a fight.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>He walked away from me like a whipped cur several times
>on Sunday.
I didn't mean a physical fight, Bob. He probably just didn't want to
further antagonize you.
>Then Joyce sed:
>> BTW, how on earth did Burke happen, Dave? From comments made
>> in the past, I thought Burke was persona non grata.
>Shit happens. But he is still a zero, tho' if people
>don't show up this is what happens. And then the people
>who don't show up complain that the few smart people
>there let it happen. What, are we supposed to vote
>twice?
I would ask that anyone who cannot bring themselves to support Burke,
should take their energies and support Jim Brewster for U. S. Senate. He's
a good guy, and he's going to need supporters and activists in the Portland
metro area.
dR.DavE
Scott Johnson <sj_n...@nospam.aracnet.com> writes:
>Bob Tiernan wrote:
>> Then Joyce sed:
>>
>> > BTW, how on earth did Burke happen, Dave? From comments made
>> > in the past, I thought Burke was persona non grata.
>
>> Shit happens. But he is still a zero, tho' if people
>> don't show up this is what happens. And then the people
>> who don't show up complain that the few smart people
>> there let it happen. What, are we supposed to vote
>> twice?
>If you Libs can't get your act together sufficiently to keep a Burke
>(whom lots of Libs are on record as not liking) from getting a bunch of
>his buddies together and showing up at the nominating convention and
>getting nominated for governor; what the HELL makes you think you can
>organize sufficiently to defeat the Republicans or Democrats?
Ironically, Burke did not get a bunch of his buddies together for this. I
counted, at most, six known supporters in attendance. Burke got his
support from most of the neutral delegates in attendance, plus a handful of
old-timers.
>When's your next convention? I and 18 of my buddies may well register
>as Libertarian, show up, and nominate Ralph Nader in abstentia. (Just
>kidding.) It seems that the critical mass to secure a nomination in
>Lib-land is RIDICULOUSLY low...
Such are the trials and tribulations of a minor party in Oregon. I agree
with your assessment completely. We do what we can, and we're making
progress, halting and stuttering though it may be.
>Hell, ya got a competent computer geek in Dave. Ever thought of setting
>up a virtual convention, with several remote sites connected by the net
>(or some other mechanism), so folks out in Eastern Oregon (or Southern
>Oregon, or elsewhere that's distant from PDX) can participate without
>having to travel to Portland.
I certainly wouldn't be opposed to it. Anything that increases
participation is a good thing.
Laurel Halbany
On 11 Feb 1998 08:06:33 -0800, drd...@user2.teleport.com (dR.DavE)
wrote:
>Neither of them require bigger government, that I can discern. Am I
>missing something?
What CLW said, basically. If you require clinics to prove that they
checked age on everybody and got parental consent forms from minors,
plus you must create a judicial bypass system for said minors, that's
more bureaucracy. (Who is going to monitor and enforce the law, btw?)
dR.DavE
Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com> writes:
>On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Scott Johnson wrote:
>> So, Bob....
>>
>> Who ya gonna vote for? The republocrat Sizemore?
>>
>> Or Burke?
>I'll never vote for Burke. Not after his Jim Crow-like
>attempt to deprive convention delegates of their right
>to vote - and complete with hired security guards
>watching over us!
Devil's Advocate time. It was Steve Dodds's decision to interpret the
membership records in the way they attempted. And the delegates in
question did organize ahead of time so that (a) the question could not be
resolved by JudComm before the convention, because of the required notice
period, and (b) it has been claimed that the delegates weren't paid up
because if the state comm elections didn't go their way, they could quit
the LPO without reupping.
Was it a bad decision? Yes. Apparently, the exact date of the end of a
person's membership had never been challenged. Their decision violated the
spirit of libertarianism, and had I been there, I would have supported
their inclusion. But I wanted to point this out because the situation was
apparently not as cut and dried as Bob wrote above.
c...@teleport.com
>
> Another "problem" I don't see sleazemore addressing. If ya'
> wanna put the bad guys away for a _very_ long time, it's
> gonna cost ya' to do so - a fact which seems totally lost on
> the sleazemore.
We could apply the Arizona method. Baloney sandwiches three times a day.
David Zeit
Thurston, Rus...@teleport.com wrote:
>
> > mi...@paranoia.com (Mike Chapman) writes:
> > drla...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Derek R. Larson) writes:
>
>
> for governor... Who doesn't like spuds?
>
Dan Quayle loves 'em as long as he doesn't have to spell them. <g>
potato? Potatoe? Spuds!
David Zeit
Thurston, Rus...@teleport.com wrote:
>
> > c...@teleport.com () writes:
> > Thurston Rus...@teleport.com wrote:
>
> > > And exactly what does "qualif[y]" a given individual to be governor?
>
> > Education, brains, common sense and experience. Same as any job.
>
> >>>>
>
> What planet do you hail from (really)? If that were the case, how did
> William Jefferson Clinton get to be President? Let alone Harding,
> Ford, Wilson, etc....? No political position requires any of the above,
> merely the capacity to lie well.
>
Are you asking what qualities one needs to serve in office or what
qualities one needs to get elected? I suggest they are different.
David Zeit
Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 c...@teleport.com wrote:
>
> > > And exactly what does "qualif[y]" a given individual to be governor?
>
> > Education, brains, common sense and experience. Same as any job.
>
> it's so important, it would be there.
>
> Bob T.
Uh, Bob, not every thing of importance is mentioned in the Oregon
Constitution. Some things are just understood, often better by some than
others. :-)
Dick Winningstad
Derek R. Larson <drla...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
<6btlmp$d9a$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
> In article <01bd374e$0414f120$877fa3ce@default>,
> Dick Winningstad <lem...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >Politics has always been polarized. Your side just won most of the time
> >earlier. Now it is not so often. One advantage to a polarized executive
and
> >legislative branch is that the citizens do not get the "benefits" of
either
> >sides programs and are likely to be left alone more.
>
>
> You're simply wrong here Dick. Politics were not always polarized in
> Oregon, and much of our landmark legislation had bi-partisan support.
> McCall and Straub ran against each other in '66, but had almost identical
> positions on critical issues (ditto in '70). Straub served as Treasurer
> during both those terms and the two worked fairly well together (this was
> when the treasurer had a great deal more influence on state politics than
> today. During that period (and several other times I can pick out if you
> like) moderates from both parties supported progressive legislation that
> helped shape Oregon into what it is today. During other times moderates
> from both parties came together to oppose those from either side that
> would sell out to bigotry, robber barons, or whatever threat presented
> itself (as with the KKK in the 1920s).
As I said (not to clearly obviously) the group supporting the current
definition of progressive ideology has had it their way for sometime. The
center has shifted back to the right and the case for a constantly
expanding, er today's progressive, government is being challenged more
effectively. I should have stated myself more clearly sorry.
> For those self-styled libertarians that detest any government, the
current
> state of affairs is probably fine.
I am not a libertarian (yet) so I will just say that the current state of
affairs is not fine. A 20% increase in the state budget is not my idea of
reining in government power. There has been no decrease in overall state
and local government spending (some individual units have suffered
decreases).
> For those of us who consider
> government an expression of the people and feel that collective action
can
> make things better, it's not so good.
The people have expressed themselves by voting in tax limitation measures
as the only way to try to slow down let alone reduce government spending.
So whose people are you talking about? If the legislature and the executive
branches were doing their jobs, they would have been reining in spending on
their own.
Collective action? How about collectively capping spending and taking from
another agency the money to fix the roads? How about collectively scrapping
the property tax and taxing cash flow (all business transactions retail and
services) for a new way of raising revenue?
How about trying a new way to run government instead of just whining about
how spending is not growing fast enough?
> But putting an anti-government
> demagogue into office just to spite the tax collector is simply foolish,
> by anyone's measure. That kind of stunt may work on the county level in
> Wyoming or Nevada, but in a state of 3+ million facing severe economic
and
> growth challenges in the next century, it strikes me as a good way to
toss
> our children's future in the trash.
It is so inflammatory to label Sizemore an anti-government demagogue. I do
not think he is pushing anarchy through elimination of the state
government. He is pushing for a change in the way government does its
business. Certainly a topic worthy of debate.
> As it stands most of my friends from Oregon, all in their early-mid 30s
> and well educated, either left for college or left soon afterward.
In this mobile society, a fair amount of movement is to be expected. Oregon
is still only 1% of the U.S. in most ways of measuring (population, GNP,
etc.) If you or your friends had studied business or computer science more
of you might have stayed as that is where the economic growth has taken
place in Oregon. Who knows? If PSU had been allowed to offer Ph.D. programs
in competition with the down state universities, maybe you would be
teaching history here. Though I bet that you are getting a more expansive
experience in the history profession by moving to another place (serious
comment not derogatory :-) ).
> I doubt any of them will return until things get worked out; even the
annual
> visits to see family can get depressing when you see everything either
> decaying, closed down, or covered over with new subdivisions-- sort of
> like the early 80s, but with new people coming in to fill up the open
> spaces.
>
Please visit Washington County or the Bend area or the Medford area. Like
any state, places are doing well and others are not doing well. Everything
is not decaying or closing down. New sub-divisions? yeah that is a fact of
economic expansion. What a price to pay for growth. I personally have
suffered from the expansion of sub-divisions by having my old motorcycle
roads in the West Hills get to crowded for spirited riding. Oh
well...........
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Learn from Clio
Dick Winningstad lem...@teleport.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Tiernan
On Feb 10 David Ziet wrote:
> what is Mr. Sizemore's proposal to finance schools
He'll finance them, sure, but if he has his way he can
prevent the usual bullshit pulled on us by the Skooling
Corporation in which they fire teachers in order to make
us cry uncle and vote them more money, when there
is a lot of fat to cut. And it's no surprise that they do
this in the first place. After all, if they got rid of the
fat they'd expose themselves as having been aware of
it all along.
But the correct question should be: Should we have
State controlled skooling to begin with? Should we
toss off this relic from Prussia that was imported by
Horace Mann? Yes. But don't worry. Sizemore
won't do this. And while we're on this, I think that it's
pathetic that with this, as with so many other issues,
one major party believes in giving the other party
95% of the money they want for most programs.
There's a clear choice for ya! "I'm 5% better than
the other candidate".
> improve roads
This is mostly on auto-pilot. Besides, you want
better use of money for this? Then support the
repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, a law originally
designed to shut out minority-owned businesses
from competing with mostly white unionized
businesses. It's a privileged piece of legislation
that give the government more power (while
costing us money which benefits government even
more for we'll have less for ourselves) and tho'
the State has gotten past the black-white
issue, they're addicted to the power of using
it.
> fund education
You said that already.
> provide for public saftey
I doubt that Sizemore's going to gut this, although
he'll no doubt resist the pressures to further
erode our abilities to see to our own safety with
our own peace-keepers.
> He seems very good at tearing things apart.
Some tearing apart is highly beneficial. Look
at the favor the last batch of leaders of the
Soviet Union did for their subjects.
Bob T.
"How little important it is to destroy a government, in
comparison with destroying the *prestige* of government"
-- Albert Jay Nock
Bob Tiernan
On Feb 11 Laurel Halbany wrote:
> I was interested to see, in the O today, that Sizemore
> supports parental notification (for abortions) and tax
> breaks for business that offer daycare. Isn't he the
> "smaller government" candidate?
"Smaller", sure. But not "small". It's all relative when
you're talkin' major parties.
1. Parental notification (for abortions):
Well, parental notification is not really unusual to begin
with since I don't believe that pre-18 year olds can have
any surgery and other procedures performed without an
parental involvement (not counting emergencies, after
which parents are notified anyway). Even ear piercing
needs parental permission, I believe.
I think that the real reason people are opposed to parental
notification is because abortion is such a no-touch issue
with them that they do not want *any* infringement in this
area. I can agree, but will you deal with the privacy of
a 16 year-old getting voluntary plastic surgery, or even
getting ears pierced?
As a legislator I would vote against this in some forms,
for it in others. I just don't like to see abortion becoming
such an untouchable right that notification is okay for
everything else (including right to keep and bear arms -
let's stop parental notification for that one since there's
no age limit on it).
I only wish that pro-abortion rights people were as respectful
of all other rights.
2. Tax breaks for businesses that offer day care:
Does this mean businesses like Intel and Natures? Or
all of them *including* small day care businesses based
in homes, i.e. day care businesses themselves.
I'm against using the tax system to manipulate business
and private behavior. The real problem here is that State
interference in the economy for far too long has made it
much more difficult to start businesses and to keep them
going, and in the case of the relatively recent high demand
for day care services, it's also obvious that meeting that
demand is slowed and hampered by the State-interference
system, a system that in its original form was able to
quickly meet demands for a bazillion needs. Government
has slowly usurped powers that enable it to squeeze
private (free society) enterprises, thus creating justification
for its own expansions in these areas, followed by higher
taxes, agencies (with more tax-supported employees who
then are more likely to vote to keep the government at
its current level or bigger) and more compliance laws,
all adding to the burden of businesses still hanging on.
Many will point to corporations and other relatively big
companies and say they'll not be hurt. Sure, but for those
people out there who despise corporations, why do you
support an economic system that demolishes the small
businesses that give us the choices, and keeps many of
those remaining businesses only a few slow months
away from folding?
Scott Johnson
Why do "education, brains, common sense, and experience" trouble
Bob? Certainly Libertarian candidates lack experience (in elected
office and public administration); but I'm SURE there are Libs with
brains, education, and common sense.
Heck, I eat lunch with a bunch of 'em every couple of weeks.
I certainly prefer that elected officials have at least the first three,
if not all four. However, measuring brains and/or common sense is not
possible to do in a truly objective fashion--at any rate, those of us
who remember our history surely recall the use of "literacy tests" in
Reconstruction-era South as a pretext to keep blacks from voting. More
mischief would be possible than there would be benefit.
But, CLW is right. Not everything of importance is mentioned in the
Oregon (or US) Constitution. Like, for instance, the Right of the
People to Keep and Smoke Dope (also known as the RKSD :) ).
Point made?
Scott
Bob Tiernan
On Feb 11 1998 clw wrote:
> Thurston Russell wrote:
> > Is the primary purpose of "education" to produce
> > drones for the "work force"/"business community"?
> Theyr'e the ones who employ and pay them. So the
> answer is yes.
Bovine scat, Charlie. This is pure, unadulterated,
statist and elitist flapdoodle and balderdash.
I don't doubt that this is one of the motivations
behind State skooling, and that big business
was behind this, but I will never accept that
children exist in this "free society" to be used
and forced to serve others in this or any other
manner. There are already tons and tons of
conservatives and moderates who may be ready
to vote to eliminate our compulsory skooling
system, but it won't get anywhere until those
left of center go for this in large numbers.
Since many of them seem to view "corporations",
and the business community in general, as the
evils in this society, I wonder why they support
the current State skool system which is nothing
more than, I guess, a "subsidization of corporate
and business worker training", not to mention
an individualism-crushing institution.
More on State Skooling and Big Business
in a later post, within 24 hours.
> > Your use of the term "drones" indicates that you
> > have a low opinion of those who work for a living.
I think he was just using a term that so many
group-over-the-individual people use. Just like
the progressives and socialists keep calling
we the people "workers", as if we should all
be worker bees. I find that insulting.
Scott Johnson
Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> On Feb 10 David Ziet wrote:
>
> > what is Mr. Sizemore's proposal to finance schools
>
> He'll finance them, sure, but if he has his way he can
> prevent the usual bullshit pulled on us by the Skooling
> Corporation in which they fire teachers in order to make
> us cry uncle and vote them more money, when there
> is a lot of fat to cut.
And what, precisely, are you talking about????
When corporations lay off folks, do you go ranting and raving at the
shareholders' meetings about how it really is a plot on the part of the
Board of Directors to support a reduction in the quarterly dividend, so
the Board has more cash to play with????
I seem to recall lots of staff and administrative personnel getting the
axe during the last layoff; not just the teachers.
> And it's no surprise that they do
> this in the first place. After all, if they got rid of the
> fat they'd expose themselves as having been aware of
> it all along.
Which fat are you referring to???
> But the correct question should be: Should we have
> State controlled skooling to begin with?
I think so, at least as an option.
> Should we
> toss off this relic from Prussia that was imported by
> Horace Mann?
Given that all modern industrialized nations use public schools, I'd
hardly call it a "relic". If anything, private schools are more of a
relic; pay-as-ya=go education has been around for a long time.
Not that any of this matters one whit.
> Yes. But don't worry. Sizemore
> won't do this. And while we're on this, I think that it's
> pathetic that with this, as with so many other issues,
> one major party believes in giving the other party
> 95% of the money they want for most programs.
> There's a clear choice for ya! "I'm 5% better than
> the other candidate".
There's always Burke...
> > improve roads
> This is mostly on auto-pilot. Besides, you want
> better use of money for this? Then support the
> repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, a law originally
> designed to shut out minority-owned businesses
> from competing with mostly white unionized
> businesses.
As I recall, the voters got to vote on exactly that a
few years back.
They turned it down.
As I recall (I could be wrong), Sizemore was one of the fellows
behind the attempted repeal of the state's version of Davis-Bacon.
(Point of info; Davis-Bacon only applies to Federal contractors; many
states do have equivalent laws, however, including Oregon)
> It's a privileged piece of legislation
> that give the government more power
Howso? If anything, it REDUCES gubmint's power, as it reduces gubmint's
ability to negotiate contracts for services. The beneficiaries of
Davis-Bacon are labor, not the gubmint.
And the folks in the Oregon Legislature, last I checked, were hardly
supporters of (or supported by) labor--the majority is conservative
Republicans; a group generally opposed to organized labor.
> (while costing us money which benefits government even
> more for we'll have less for ourselves) and tho'
> the State has gotten past the black-white
> issue, they're addicted to the power of using it.
Again, explain. How does something which REDUCES gubmint's ability to
do something BENEFIT gubmint?
> > fund education
>
> You said that already.
>
> > provide for public saftey
> I doubt that Sizemore's going to gut this, although
> he'll no doubt resist the pressures to further
> erode our abilities to see to our own safety with
> our own peace-keepers.
I'm not aware of Sizemore ever making a public statement on the RKBA.
> > He seems very good at tearing things apart.
>
> Some tearing apart is highly beneficial. Look
> at the favor the last batch of leaders of the
> Soviet Union did for their subjects.
Instead of a backward, corrupt, Communist country; they have a backward,
corrupt, capitalist one. Granted, many things have improved; still,
Russia is a terrible mess.
It'll take a lot of money, and a lot of time, to undo seventy-plus years
of communism.
Scott