Crux

The Seattle Times bought out The Stranger?

Sure, Romney will say anything, depending on whatever he thinks will be the most effective tactic for manipulating his target audience. As a financier, his targets were business owners that he used to bilk hundreds of $millions out of the American economy once the laws that defined his practices as felonious were repealed. Moreover, not only does what he says change with the proverbial wind, but his actual beliefs seem to change just as readily, as though he were a man with no real convictions. As such, he can say and believe whatever is most convenient to best serve the self-seeking ends to which he is beholden. This leaves us with one stark question: As he is man thus beholden, to whom will Romney give his allegiance as president? On domestic issues, Romney has actually made pretty clear what he'll do. Privatize profits. Externalize losses. Money in the pocket and the bill to the taxpayer. He's maybe the most successful American carpetbagger of modern times, and will continue being that as long as he can. In the area of foreign affairs, the answer to the question of who will own Romney is obvious. Our old friends from the Bush administration--the Neocons--will be back calling the shots, literally. The appointments are already made. Bona-fide nutjob fascists at the trigger, that will be just great. Which brings up another point: Regarding the similarity you see between Republicans and communists, I think the commonality you're perceiving is the outcome of totalitarianism. The Republican party has become the party of fascism, really a different ideology compared to communism. That said, both might remind you of totalitarianism, understandably, as both have historically delivered to their respective constituents that same end--and, if I'm not mistaken, you were one of those constituents at one time. All that said, I'd be comparatively comfortable with Republicans in power if they were communists. Seriously. Maybe that's because I'm a liberal, and communists are just people farther to the left, maybe a lot farther to the left, but not all communist leaders or governments prove disastrous. I don't know we can say the same of fascism, an ideology so remarkably disposed to committing immense acts of brutality to most anybody, include its own people, that some intellectuals actually equivocate fascism with brutality, rather than defining it as social-economic model. Anyway, when you consider what fascism is -- the merger of oligarchic corporate power with that of the state -- then the outcome seems obvious, so long as you are one to agree that absolute power will corrupt absolutely. So yeah, considering your experience with a totalitarian regime, I'm not surprised if today's Republican party reminds you of that.

Reading various articles about charter schools, the pros-and-cons, I note laudable efforts by self-described technocrats, such as Bill Gates, to improve education. Efforts are experimental, but in some cases there's progress toward the goal of making things better for the kids. Overall, for charter schooling, sometimes education proves better, sometimes it proves worse--giving us disparate outcomes that muddle the choice. Also, there appears to be a lot of variety in the approaches to charter schooling. So much variety, in fact, that parties across the political spectrum are betting on charter schools, with different parties sometimes having very different agenda--and this too, is confusing. It's as though proponents who have mutually exclusive goals, are pursuing those goals by the same means, begging the question, who is fooling who? One might dismiss that question as being no more than a cynical waste of time, but working with such paradoxical evidence, we voters are left to figure out what's really going on, and doing so isn't easy. But it is easy, actually, to see that of all the conflicting directions suggested by both advocates and opponents of charter schools, there seems to be only one clear difference that sets charter schools apart from regular public schools: With all charter school models, union membership for school employees is banned. In my view, there's no good reason for the charter model to necessarily be totally anti-union, while at once it is clear there's no sure advantage to be provided to most students by charter schools. Therefore, what we have here is a resolute focus against unions, with no established means for promoting the welfare of the students. I'm pretty sure I know what my vote on I-1240 is going to be, but I have a question: What the charter school initiative provides us with is not so much a choice on how to provide for education, but a choice on busting the school employees's union. Why is that? various articles: 31Jan2012 The Stranger "Charter School Mania Is Back" 21May2012 New York Times "Gates Puts the Focus on Teaching"

How is any of that going to remedy the misery of being raped in the ass?

One says, "I'm right, you're wrong, no matter what." The other says, "By the evidence, I believe this true; but it's falsifiable, and this is how."

Once there was a day in a tavern, when guys like that proved more reasonable, when it came right down to it. Funny how shopping malls can bring out the worst in us.

Release your inner security camera. It's just plane stupid not to.

Seattle Times fact checker says: "Actually, what the Dems said was pretty much true, during that debate, but wtf, we're gonna call them liars anyway, with the qualifier that they are saying what they are saying in order to win the undecided voter, and because you readers are really just too stupid to vote Republican like you should, without us obfusicating the issues and kind of, well, doing some of that fair-and-balanced shit. By the way, we're buying full-page ads in our own paper to try and get undecided voters to vote Republican. Check out the full-spread ads for McKenna, there to make you smarter every day until the election. Pretty cool, huh? Anyway, it's just business. Seriously, the other side has opposed the big wars, and big wars are good business for us. So buy more of our newspapers you sucker mother fuckers. That means you too, GGK, you dipshit. You might not care what the undecided voter thinks, but we do." --The Seattle Times

KK supports pro-gay politics. Seriously. He had binders full of gays long before it was fashionable.

MAN! We know the binder was fucking empty, We know you kept the million bucks for yourself!

Michelle, save me!

Binders of ho-hos.

Libtards and their ho-homophobic insults.

It's OK to prefer men, KK. Don't be embarrassed.

Kevbone, surely you must be persuaded by Romney's offer to let women get off from work early, you know, so they can get home in time to cook dinner. And I think there's talk about him keeping hands off your uterus too. Even though that too is apparently up for further debate, at least that's some progress coming from, you know, your kind of guy. Just ignore the part where his body language was saying you bitches shut the fuck up, when he towered over the uppity moderator, smacking his dick across her face -- he has a secret plan to stop doing that, after he's elected.

I know of more than 3 people in America who read both the NYT and FoxNews, and I salute you all. Your reporting on FoxNews is valuable for the rest of us -- people who, like myself, suffer a certain immune deficiency, such that viewing Fox first hand infects us with some type of a zombie virus that drives us to mindlessly chase down Republicans to eat their guts out. I know, I know, zombies are supposed to be brain-eaters. But, you know, that just wouldn't work, in this case, considering. Now, one might say the Cons are just as gutless as they are brainless, but from my personal experience I can assure you they are full of substantial quantities of large colon tissue and related contents. Fortunately, the pathology of said virus does seem to resolve in my case, provided I remain isolated from the source of infection. My only effective protection is prophylaxis, and for that I use Murdoch-Block on my browser, always avoid televisions in the wild, and make sure FoxNews reaches me only by vicarious means -- and for this, again, I'm grateful for you war correspondents who risk losing your sanity on the front lines. The very thought of BIAS ALERTs and Bill O'Reilly and Hannity and Hell on Earth and... is almost too... much... oh, my gawd... must... find... guts...

After years of requisite, painstaking gathering of evidence, there's more: MASSIVE Bank Lawsuits. Below, Jamie Dimon offers to blow Obama prosecutors, or something like that, 15 Oct 2012: Yeah, holy Joseph and Mary!

You read it first here in Spray: Butt-hurt used douche nozzle backs into swinging door of dubious web-forum...threatens legislative action

How do you know Biden won the debate? When you hear Republicans whine about how the moderator wasn't a protective enough mother-figure for Ryan when Biden was laughing at him.

Time to ask the one big question we didn't hear, even though you were all surely thinking about it: Which candidate would be best suited for taking command of the United States' military arsenal... Sarah Palin or Paul Ryan?

Hey Joe, where you goin' with that gun in your hand?

You gotta problem with the Polish percentage system mutha fukka? Well do ya?