Fairweather

Drinking the KoolAid, I see.

...and it looks like a bunch of 'em were hired by the state. How does the big "decline" in state employment compare to, say, the pain being endured in private sector employment? I doubt it's commensurate.

WA State Government Employment Including Higher Education FTEs (Full Time Employees) 2010 109,973 2009 112,545 2008 111,420 2007 108,693 2006 106,641 2005 106,769 2004 105,078 2003 104,263 2002 103,818 2001 102,042 2000 99,928 1999 97,900 1998 95,023 1997 93,682 1996 91,828 1995 91,891 1994 89,603 1993 90,174 1992 87,662 1991 84,563 1990 80,309

Gotta love the attempts at in-text citation that you're including with your posts, but, hint: you're not writing a 200-level rhetorical analysis here. And style points only count when referencing scholarly work--which is far from the gurge you're trying to pass off as credible here.

The thing is, the revenue side really does need to be addressed--and letting the GWB tax cuts expire (for everyone) would be a good thing. Unfortunately, those on my side of the fence see useless unionist thug sponges like j_b screeching like baby birds in a nest and we ask ourselves whether tax increases are really going to get us out of this hole that we're in. Cuts first, public sector reform second, new revenues last.

Swiftboating. At least the Repubs had the decency to wait until a nominee was chosen, dammit.

I'll bet you were poppin Prozac like popcorn. Your therapy bill probably hasn't been this high since A.I. was in theaters.

Um, didn't your DNC buddies send you your talking points? Cain was last week. This week's topic is Gingrich or, um, uh, whichever R happens to be leading in the polls.

While I agree with you one hundred percent on this, I gotta smirk when I see you supporting your premises with citations from the same "tired, dusty old document" that you openly mock when it's contents prove ideologically inconvenient. No clue what your on about here...I'd guess it's yer brain not workin' right again, but that's coo! Think real hard. (Difficult for you, I know.) It may become easier once the smoke clears.

While I agree with you one hundred percent on this, I gotta smirk when I see you supporting your premises with citations from the same "tired, dusty old document" that you openly mock when it's contents prove ideologically inconvenient.

That's the first time I ever heard an innernutz assclown label Cronkite as 'trivial'. I don't think you did your already somewhat...um...tenuous credibility any favors there, laddie. It's unfortunately not the first time I see an assclown who doesn't understand what he just read. One incidence is trivial evidence by opposition to the behavior in general. You know what, fuckwad? I grew up watching coverage of the Vietnam war. I watched it pretty closely...my 2nd grade classmate's brother died there, and me pops was there for 2 years. The news didn't pull any punches in telling it like it was. Reporters risked and lost their lives telling it like it was. If your lilly-livered, I've-done-fuck-all-but-whine post modern ego requires denigration of that kind sacrifice, that's cool. And you also need to fuck off, you pusillanimous little fucking insect. Clear enough, or would you like another 'anecdotal' opinion? passmethefuckingpopcornIlovethisshit

Don't worry, they'll pull it out. (And spray it all over our backs.)

When will they address the problem of road head?

And if the government took all of our arms away, then we'd have to rely on them for, well, pretty much everything. Ya know.

I don't know what I'd do without my favorite arm.

As long as it's within the first trimester--before the teeth are formed.

I'm just glad we'll all be able to keep at least one arm. Who, after all, wouldn't support a limit on arms?

Ohhhh reaaalllyyyyy?

D.C. v Heller. God, I love the Supremes!

When my body is fully depreciated and unable to climb, I'm gonna build one of those things and summit-hop the Cascade Range.

Constitution, scmonstitution! Tvash & Co. have an even more better idea!

Not unless you blow the dust off that tired old document first. (And come up with something better.)

By Rob's logic the press portion of the First Amendment only protects newspapers. BAN THE INTERNET!