Legalize it thread

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Unless you're going to meaningfully participate here, STFU and quit stealing time from your employer, KKK.

 

LOL. Funny how you never say that to your buddy rob, j_b or Ivan, or...

 

Keep trying though - I really don't care a wit for what a sociopath like you expects or wants from others.

[sobo]

Conviction is nothing without action.

 

Sorry...I've heard it all before.

One of my many convictions is that I don't release personal information. Nor do I commit funds over the telephone. Are you now to be the arbiter of my convictions as well?? To judge what are, and are not, legitimate convictions?

 

Ad hominem, blah blah, but Grandma's still got bigger ballz. She's willing to be active in an important process of reform, even at the risk of identity theft (which has, do date, never occurred with petition signatures). You've decided that your fear of identity theft trumps participating in the petition process. Grandma is simply braver in that regard. Them's just the facts, dood. Call it an attack. I call it an observation.

Whut-evuh...

I play my part in the process of reform, I just board the train at the next station. Do you have some sort of problem with the manner in which I participate in my government? Are you now to be the arbiter of how I discharge my citizenship, as well as what convictions I may be allowed to hold? Jeezus, Pat, get a hold of yourself! Not everyone practices their citizenship in the same manner as you. Allow for a difference of opinion, ferchrissakes.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Conviction is nothing without action.

 

Sorry...I've heard it all before.

One of my many convictions is that I don't release personal information. Nor do I commit funds over the telephone. Are you now to be the arbiter of my convictions as well?? To judge what are, and are not, legitimate convictions?

 

Ad hominem, blah blah, but Grandma's still got bigger ballz. She's willing to be active in an important process of reform, even at the risk of identity theft (which has, do date, never occurred with petition signatures). You've decided that your fear of identity theft trumps participating in the petition process. Grandma is simply braver in that regard. Them's just the facts, dood. Call it an attack. I call it an observation.

Whut-evuh...

I play my part in the process of reform, I just board the train at the next station. Do you have some sort of problem with the manner in which I participate in my government? Are you now to be the arbiter of how I discharge my citizenship, as well as what convictions I may be allowed to hold? Jeezus, Pat, get a hold of yourself! Not everyone practices their citizenship in the same manner as you. Allow for a difference of opinion, ferchrissakes.

 

Ooh, and next he'll tell you you are stealing from your employer, Sobo. Mess with a sociopath and that's what to expect.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Look, I think you're a good man and all Sobo. I'm not casting aspersions to your character. But I tend to be frank with friends, doncha know. Don't wanna get all over your personal shit, but petitions are a public issue with far reaching consequences, so I expect, rightly or wrongly, for folks to step up to what is essentially a very easy and historically risk free way to participate in reform. I'm not an arbiter of anything...your choices are yours...and my opinions are mine.

I don't think there's anything inaccurate in what I've opined so far about this.

Edited December 1, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

bob marley would sign the petition

 

“The people who are trying to make this world worse aren’t taking a day off. How can I?"

 

- Bob Marley, after being asked why he was still playing at a political-rally 2 days after he’d been shot in a politically-motivated assassination attempt

Edited December 1, 2011 by ivan

[sobo]

But what this discussion has been about for the past 25-odd posts is about the need, or lack thereof, of opposition groups having access to the personal information of signers of a petition which the group opposes, and why those groups should, or should not, be allowed access to that personal information.

 

It's not about 'opposition groups' having access to signatures, it's about the public's access to same, per the PRA. It's a legislative process. PRA requires disclosure unless a competing harm resulting from disclosure or a reasonable expectation of privacy can be demonstrated. Neither was effectively by the plaintiffs in the case.

 

Again, I remain on the fence about disclosure, siding slightly in favor (secretive government IS a HUGE problem, retribution is a non problem).

 

I do feel strongly about people who don't sign petitions they strongly believe due to mythical fears of skulduggery, however.

 

People all over the middle east are risking their lives just to vote...and we can't sign petitions because we're afraid of a credit card theft scheme that's never happened and probably couldn't, given the information that probably won't be disclosed anyway because no one will actually request it? That's some pussy shit right there, IMO. Sorry.

Pat, go back and reread my very first post on this thread on Page 1. Yes, my post was about the same-sex marriage folks (a group opposed to PMW, therefore an opposition group by definition) threatening to acquire the personal information of the supporters of the PMW's petition to overturn the same-sex marriage law (via the PRA) in order to harrass and intimidate those supporters. They threatened to contact the supporters of PMW in order to have "uncomfortable conversations" with them. That is harrassment and voter intimidation, and what this whole thread has become about.

 

As I have said at least three times already, I have no qualms about the need to verify the legitimacy of a political process through the review of personal information, but access to personal information by opponents to a particular piece of legislation becomes suspect when that opposition group threatens retaliation/intimidation to the supporters of that legislation. Why can you not see that?

 

I completely support the GLBT community in the victory they enjoyed in acquiring marriage rights. That was a no-brainer of a vote for me. Are they not people, too? Who wouldn't want them to enjoy the same rights as everyone else? Closeted bigots is all I can figure. What I do not support is the tactics they threatened to use when an opposition group (PMW) took up a petition to reverse those rights. It is the tactics that I do not condone.

[billcoe]

...and while you all are at it, legalize prostitution at the same time.

[tvashtarkatena]

As I have said at least three times already, I have no qualms about the need to verify the legitimacy of a political process through the review of personal information, but access to personal information by opponents to a particular piece of legislation becomes suspect when that opposition group threatens retaliation/intimidation to the supporters of that legislation. Why can you not see that?

 

I completely support the GLBT community in the victory they enjoyed in acquiring marriage rights. That was a no-brainer of a vote for me. Are they not people, too? Who wouldn't want them to enjoy the same rights as everyone else? Closeted bigots is all I can figure. What I do not support is the tactics they threatened to use when an opposition group (PMW) took up a petition to reverse those rights. It is the tactics that I do not condone.

 

I don't think any of use support the tactic of harassment, and I haven't argued in favor of disclosure (on the fence and all), but what I do argue in favor of is signing petitions for reforms you strongly believe in EVEN IF THE KRISTIANS THREATEN YOU WITH UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERSATION (which, of course, never happened, and doesn't happen, in reality). Given that disclosure, right or wrong, is allowed, I still think people should man up and sign. What, you can't handle a few (mythical) Kristian harassers? Fucking bring it, beyotch.

[sobo]

As I have said at least three times already, I have no qualms about the need to verify the legitimacy of a political process through the review of personal information, but access to personal information by opponents to a particular piece of legislation becomes suspect when that opposition group threatens retaliation/intimidation to the supporters of that legislation. Why can you not see that?

 

I completely support the GLBT community in the victory they enjoyed in acquiring marriage rights. That was a no-brainer of a vote for me. Are they not people, too? Who wouldn't want them to enjoy the same rights as everyone else? Closeted bigots is all I can figure. What I do not support is the tactics they threatened to use when an opposition group (PMW) took up a petition to reverse those rights. It is the tactics that I do not condone.

 

I don't think any of use support the tactic of harassment, and I haven't argued in favor of disclosure (on the fence and all), but what I do argue in favor of is signing petitions for reforms you strongly believe in EVEN IF THE KRISTIANS THREATEN YOU WITH UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERSATION (which, of course, never happened, and doesn't happen, in reality). Given that disclosure, right or wrong, is allowed, I still think people should man up and sign. What, you can't handle a few (mythical) Kristian harassers? Fucking bring it, beyotch.

In general, I'm a very private person. Sure, I may have a few "Hey Sobo, what time is it?" threads floating around here, but for the most part, I mind my own business and let other mind theirs. I really hate telemarketing phone calls, spam emails, and fiercely loathe the door-to-door Krusaders that come around here pretty damn regularly... too damn regularly, in fact. So no, I do not even want to have to think about considering to deal with these types. That's just how far I want to remove myself from them. "I just want to be left alone..."

[tvashtarkatena]

As I have said at least three times already, I have no qualms about the need to verify the legitimacy of a political process through the review of personal information, but access to personal information by opponents to a particular piece of legislation becomes suspect when that opposition group threatens retaliation/intimidation to the supporters of that legislation. Why can you not see that?

 

I completely support the GLBT community in the victory they enjoyed in acquiring marriage rights. That was a no-brainer of a vote for me. Are they not people, too? Who wouldn't want them to enjoy the same rights as everyone else? Closeted bigots is all I can figure. What I do not support is the tactics they threatened to use when an opposition group (PMW) took up a petition to reverse those rights. It is the tactics that I do not condone.

 

I don't think any of use support the tactic of harassment, and I haven't argued in favor of disclosure (on the fence and all), but what I do argue in favor of is signing petitions for reforms you strongly believe in EVEN IF THE KRISTIANS THREATEN YOU WITH UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERSATION (which, of course, never happened, and doesn't happen, in reality). Given that disclosure, right or wrong, is allowed, I still think people should man up and sign. What, you can't handle a few (mythical) Kristian harassers? Fucking bring it, beyotch.

In general, I'm a very private person. Sure, I may have a few "Hey Sobo, what time is it?" threads floating around here, but for the most part, I mind my own business and let other mind theirs. I really hate telemarketing phone calls, spam emails, and fiercely loathe the door-to-door Krusaders that come around here pretty damn regularly... too damn regularly, in fact. So no, I do not even want to have to think aobut considering to deal with these types. That's just how far I want to remove myself from them.

 

Yeah, me too. And petitions have nothing to do with all that.

 

But I step up beyond my personal nature when required by things larger than myself.

 

I simply don't buy the postmodern concept of 'no muss, no fuss, only if it suits me personally democracy'. Democracy requires action, participation, and, at times, being (slightly) inconvenienced. The alternative is: do nothing, and let the other side run rampant.

[sobo]

As I have said at least three times already, I have no qualms about the need to verify the legitimacy of a political process through the review of personal information, but access to personal information by opponents to a particular piece of legislation becomes suspect when that opposition group threatens retaliation/intimidation to the supporters of that legislation. Why can you not see that?

 

I completely support the GLBT community in the victory they enjoyed in acquiring marriage rights. That was a no-brainer of a vote for me. Are they not people, too? Who wouldn't want them to enjoy the same rights as everyone else? Closeted bigots is all I can figure. What I do not support is the tactics they threatened to use when an opposition group (PMW) took up a petition to reverse those rights. It is the tactics that I do not condone.

 

I don't think any of use support the tactic of harassment, and I haven't argued in favor of disclosure (on the fence and all), but what I do argue in favor of is signing petitions for reforms you strongly believe in EVEN IF THE KRISTIANS THREATEN YOU WITH UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERSATION (which, of course, never happened, and doesn't happen, in reality). Given that disclosure, right or wrong, is allowed, I still think people should man up and sign. What, you can't handle a few (mythical) Kristian harassers? Fucking bring it, beyotch.

In general, I'm a very private person. Sure, I may have a few "Hey Sobo, what time is it?" threads floating around here, but for the most part, I mind my own business and let other mind theirs. I really hate telemarketing phone calls, spam emails, and fiercely loathe the door-to-door Krusaders that come around here pretty damn regularly... too damn regularly, in fact. So no, I do not even want to have to think aobut considering to deal with these types. That's just how far I want to remove myself from them.

 

Yeah, me too. And petitions have nothing to do with all that.

 

But I step up beyond my personal nature when required by things larger than myself.

 

I simply don't buy the postmodern concept of 'no muss, no fuss, only if it suits me personally democracy'. Democracy requires action, participation, and, at times, being (slightly) inconvenienced. The alternative is: do nothing, and let the other side run rampant.

Well, good for you, Pat. I'm different. Agreed?

[tvashtarkatena]

Are you looking for agreement on the obvious or approval of your decision? The first is self evident, the second more allusive.

[rob]

Unless you're going to meaningfully participate here, STFU and quit stealing time from your employer, KKK.

 

LOL. Funny how you never say that to your buddy rob, j_b or Ivan, or...

 

Actually, i'm pretty sure he's said as much to me before

[rob]

You're missing the point, rob. Do you really think that a group opposed to a particular petition wants to verify the legitimacy of the petition process when they request the personal information of the signers? Or do you think they just want to get their hands on that personal information so that they can attempt to get the supporters to change their views?

 

Hmm, no, I get that. Bit I think you're missing the point, though. How do you know if somebody asking for the data has good intentions? Make them check a box promising not to use the data to harass? If I want to prevent people from checking on my petition, all I have to do is have a friend threaten to harass my signatories and now it's secret?

 

Sounds too easy. Sometimes privacy is less important than transparency. That's why political donations beyond a certain limit are public.

 

 

 

Personally, I prefer to be left alone about my voting decisions. Just one of the reasons I never sign petitions.

Exactly right. If you don't want people to know how you feel, then you shouldn't lobby a new ballot initiative by signing a petition. Or by donating more than $200.

And I don't. So I think you and I are done here.

 

Aww...don't be like that. I'm not being mean to you, I'm just discussing. I think you're doing the right thing: you want privacy, so you refuse to sign petitions. What's wrong with that? You vote just like everyone else.

Edited December 1, 2011 by rob

[tvashtarkatena]

My (offline) friends would get the same ration of shit if they refused to sign a petition they believed out of fear of disclosure.

 

They all sign petitions, though, so its a non issue.

Edited December 1, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[sobo]

Look, I think you're a good man and all Sobo. I'm not casting aspersions to your character. But I tend to be frank with friends, doncha know.

Thank you.

Don't wanna get all over your personal shit...

Yet, it seems to me that you have been...

...but petitions are a public issue with far reaching consequences, so I expect, rightly or wrongly, for folks to step up to what is essentially a very easy and historically risk free way to participate in reform.

That's your expectation, and it is right, or wrong. It depends upon the person to which you are directing your expectation, doesn't it? Not everyone believes as you do nor would act in a manner acceptable to you. We are all individuals, and different.

I'm not an arbiter of anything...your choices are yours...and my opinions are mine.

Again, thank you.

I don't think there's anything inaccurate in what I've opined so far about this.

No, and how could there be? Those are your opinions. And I have mine. You may certainly hold opinions that differ from mine, but when one says that another's opinion is wrong, then there can be no further meaningful discussion.

[j_b]

LOL. Funny how you never say that to your buddy rob, j_b or Ivan, or...

 

Actually, i'm pretty sure he's said as much to me before

 

Well, it's not like anything KKK writes has any connection to reality so you shouldn't take it literally. Berating by any means possible those who say things he doesn't like is pretty much his entire purpose in spray.

[sobo]

Are you looking for agreement on the obvious or approval of your decision? The first is self evident, the second more allusive.

The question was regarding the obvious, yet oratorical. That we are different.

Regarding the more allusive, I do not seek, nor do I require, your approval.

[rob]

LOL. Funny how you never say that to your buddy rob, j_b or Ivan, or...

 

Actually, i'm pretty sure he's said as much to me before

 

Well, it's not like anything KKK writes has any connection to reality so you shouldn't take it literally. Berating by any means possible those who say things he doesn't like is pretty much his entire purpose in spray.

 

Doesn't 5K support state-workers' rights to collective bargaining? I thought I remember him at least arguing that state workers aren't the freeloading scumbags that other people on this site make them out to be. So he can't be ALL wrong, can he?

 

Don't ALL of us berate other people who don't agree with what we say? I thought that was the game.

Edited December 1, 2011 by rob

[j_b]

Well, it's not like anything KKK writes has any connection to reality so you shouldn't take it literally. Berating by any means possible those who say things he doesn't like is pretty much his entire purpose in spray.

 

Doesn't 5K support state-workers' rights to collective bargaining? I thought I remember him at least arguing that state workers aren't the freeloading scumbags that other people on this site make them out to be. So he can't be ALL wrong, can he?

 

Don't ALL of us berate other people who don't agree with what we say? I thought that was the game.

 

One post among a thousand stating the opposite isn't worth considering.

 

I'll berate what someone says based on its merits, not imagined characteristics of my interlocutor.

[tvashtarkatena]

Are you looking for agreement on the obvious or approval of your decision? The first is self evident, the second more allusive.

The question was regarding the obvious, yet oratorical. That we are different.

Regarding the more allusive, I do not seek, nor do I require, your approval.

 

We're probably more alike than different, I'd wager. I would not presume to grant you my approval. I simply put forth my opinions for public caning, as required.

[sobo]

You're missing the point, rob. Do you really think that a group opposed to a particular petition wants to verify the legitimacy of the petition process when they request the personal information of the signers? Or do you think they just want to get their hands on that personal information so that they can attempt to get the supporters to change their views?

Hmm, no, I get that. Bit I think you're missing the point, though. How do you know if somebody asking for the data has good intentions? Make them check a box promising not to use the data to harass? If I want to prevent people from checking on my petition, all I have to do is have a friend threaten to harass my signatories and now it's secret?

 

Sounds too easy. Sometimes privacy is less important than transparency. That's why political donations beyond a certain limit are public.

That's just it, rob, you don't know what their intentions are. And given the highly-charged political climate of the times, I'd take the safer bet and say that those intentions might be less than honorable. Is that an indictment of my fellow man? Yes, it is. But I think it's accurate. Just look at the shenanigans in the last three presidential elections... The last two WA gubernatorial elections... People are stooping to new lows just to garner more votes. So yes, I believe intentions may be less than honorable when a group wants access to the personal information of signers of an opposing petition. And therein lies my belief that the signer's privacy trumps the opposition's alleged "need to know" that personal information. I still support an independent verification of the electoral process, just not by either side of the legislation under discussion. Foxes and hens, you know...

 

Personally, I prefer to be left alone about my voting decisions. Just one of the reasons I never sign petitions.

Exactly right. If you don't want people to know how you feel, then you shouldn't lobby a new ballot initiative by signing a petition. Or by donating more than $200.

And I don't. So I think you and I are done here.

Aww...don't be like that. I'm not being mean to you, I'm just discussing. I think you're doing the right thing: you want privacy, so you refuse to sign petitions. What's wrong with that? You vote just like everyone else.

I think you took my closer the wrong way. I simply agreed with you on that point, and thought that part of the discussion was concluded. I did not think you were being mean to me. It seemed to me that we understood each other's positions on other aspects of the conversation, so I thought we were done. I'm certainly open to more discussion. After all, I'm only working less than half-time these days, so I've got a lot of time on my hands...

[tvashtarkatena]

Let's put it this way, granting full marriage equality for LGBT folks has got to hurt the Kristians WAY more than any threat of 'uncomfortable conversation'.

 

Soooooo satisfying...

[sobo]

Are you looking for agreement on the obvious or approval of your decision? The first is self evident, the second more allusive.

The question was regarding the obvious, yet oratorical. That we are different.

Regarding the more allusive, I do not seek, nor do I require, your approval.

 

We're probably more alike than different, I'd wager. I would not presume to grant you my approval. I simply put forth my opinions for public caning, as required.

I made that same observation to you several years ago, if you recall, Pat. Can't recall what the thread was about back then, but it got long-winded, as we did here in this thread, and concluded that we weren't very much different politically.

 

Of course, public caning is always fun, and the norm around here, as rob points out above. Dog knows I've put enough out here in the last few weeks to be worthy of a few good swats meself...

[tvashtarkatena]

Let me just finished this particular sub-thread by stating that your opinions here have been well thought out, cogent, and compelling.

 

If I could get you into my tiki bar, I'll bet I'd have your signature on I-502 by the end of the evening. The mai tai is stronger than the kro bar. Hydraulic leverage and all that.

Edited December 1, 2011 by tvashtarkatena