?

Log in

No account? Create an account
wRog
bombs away 
24th-Oct-2006 11:28 am
howitzer
Naturally the last thing you want to hear about at this point is yet more shit about Mike McGavick (WA senate candidate) or Dave Reichert (WA 8th district house empty suit incumbent).

And I suppose it would also help if this were one of those astute political blogs that everybody reads and thus sufficiently highly ranked in Certain Search Engines to make a huge difference all by itself; yeah right.

On the other hand, every little bit helps. Spread the love

Update: oh hell, I should do this right:  Jon Kyl Rick Renzi J.D. Hayworth John Doolittle Richard Pombo Brian Bilbray Marilyn Musgrave Doug Lamborn Rick O'Donnell Christopher Shays Vernon Buchanan Joe Negron Clay Shaw Bill Sali Peter Roskam Mark Kirk Dennis Hastert Chris Chocola John Hostettler Mike Whalen Jim Ryun Anne Northup Geoff Davis Michael Steele Gil Gutknecht Michele Bachmann Jim Talent Conrad Burns Jon Porter Charlie Bass Mike Ferguson Heather Wilson Peter King John Sweeney Tom Reynolds Randy Kuhl Robin Hayes Charles Taylor Steve Chabot Jean Schmidt Deborah Pryce Joy Padgett Melissa Hart Curt Weldon Mike Fitzpatrick Don Sherwood Lincoln Chafee Bob Corker George Allen Frank Wolf Mike McGavick Dave Reichert

Update 2:  Seems the R folks are catching on to this (surprise). Time for more: Senate Connecticut: Ned Lamont Maryland: Ben Cardin Michigan: Debbie Stabenow Missouri: Claire McCaskill Montana: Jon Tester Tennessee: Harold Ford Virginia: James Webb Democrat Held Seats (CO-03): Ken Salazar (GA-03): Jim Marshall (GA-12): John Barrow (IA-03): Leonard Boswell (IL-08): Melissa Bean (IL-17): Phil Hare (IN-07): Julia Carson (NC-13): Brad Miller (PA-12): John Murtha (WV-01): Alan Mollohan Republican Held Seats (AZ-08): Gabrielle Giffords (CT-04): Diane Farrell (CT-05): Chris Murphy (CO-07): Ed Perlmutter (IA-01): Bruce Braley (IL-06): Tammy Duckworth (IN-02): Joe Donnelly (IN-08): Brad Ellsworth (IN-09): Baron Hill (FL-13): Christine Jennings (FL-16): Tim Mahoney (FL-22): Ron Klein (KY-03): John Yarmuth (NC-01): Heath Shuler (MN-06): Patty Wetterling (NM-01): Patricia Madrid (NY-20): Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-24): Michael Arcuri (NY-26): Jack Davis (OH-15): Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-18): Zack Space (PA-06): Lois Murphy (PA-08): Patrick Murphy (PA-07): Joe Sestak (PA-10): Chris Carney (VA-02): Phil Kellam (WI-08): Steve Kagen
Comments 
24th-Oct-2006 06:54 pm (UTC)
So wee!
24th-Oct-2006 07:00 pm (UTC)
yeah. STYLE attribute is your friend.

What I really like is how, in Firefox, you can just keep hitting CTRL+ and it eventually gets readable.
24th-Oct-2006 07:14 pm (UTC)
It almost looks like Morse code.
24th-Oct-2006 07:26 pm (UTC)
Anonymous
If you really wanted to do it right, you would use a <DIV> tag and not a <SPAN> tag. But technically the HTML is valid and well-formed, so whatever works.

As for spreading the love, I'll try to match (with the exception of the full-pockets wrog) contributions commenters have made to Ms. Burner's campaign within the past 30 days.
24th-Oct-2006 10:50 pm (UTC)
Seems to me if it's within a paragraph, then <SPAN> is the right thing. Or is there some semantic reason to use <DIV> instead?
24th-Oct-2006 07:00 pm (UTC)
BTW, am I supposed to vote "yes" or "no" on 933? I read through it and now my brain hurts.
24th-Oct-2006 07:14 pm (UTC)
A good rule of thumb for initiatives is no if you can't make out what's actually going on. And in this case, that also happens to be the right answer.

933 is basically a pork basket for big property developers.
920 is about keeping up the Blethen family's standard of living.
24th-Oct-2006 07:15 pm (UTC)
We like 937, though!
24th-Oct-2006 07:26 pm (UTC)
Howzabout Resolution 4223?
25th-Oct-2006 12:26 am (UTC)
YES.

Raises the personal property tax exemption from $3000 to $15000.
Looks like a bugfix to me and there's no statement against.

I find it quite odd that that this is called "personal" when every description of it I see says it's about property used in business.
I find it rather nasty that this stuff is taxed at all, so...
25th-Oct-2006 05:52 pm (UTC)
Businesses that aren't corporations, LLCs, partnerships...
24th-Oct-2006 07:19 pm (UTC)
Anonymous
I'm just repeating the "please vote yes on 937," even tho' that's not what you asked about. ^_^
24th-Oct-2006 07:20 pm (UTC) - oops
that was me. sorry about that.
24th-Oct-2006 07:35 pm (UTC) - Re: oops
I marked my handy voter's guide, just in case I forget.
24th-Oct-2006 10:55 pm (UTC) - Re: oops
937 is effectively on my "benefit of the doubt" list. Meaning, I'm not entirely convinced it'll be that useful, but there's enough good in it to at least balance my natural "vote no on everything" instinct, so yeah.

Or I can just do what my party org tells me to do and go YES YES YES YES.
24th-Oct-2006 11:00 pm (UTC)
It's written to be confusing. Basically, the result would be:

1. Developers and anyone else can claim that any government regulation reduces the value of their property, including regulations ten years old.
2. The government has to pay to enforce the regulation, resulting in $7 billion in expenses in the next few years at all levels of state and local government. The ongoing cost after the initial shakeout would hopefully be less, but still would be likely to be millions.
3. Taxpayers will be on the hook for all of these costs. We'll be paying people not to exercise their supposed right to pollute or do anything else that conceivably affects their property values.
4. That doesn't include the lawsuits. Private citizens will be suing the government and themselves over every perceived loss in potential property value.

933 is the most wretched idea ever attached to an initiative in this state. Vote No.
24th-Oct-2006 11:01 pm (UTC)
Ignore my poor grammar. You get the idea.
24th-Oct-2006 11:29 pm (UTC)
And Resolution 4223?
25th-Oct-2006 10:23 pm (UTC)
Bug fixing, basically. The current $3000 exemption dates from 1988, when $3000 was a lot more. This basically updates the property tax exemption on business to match the current value of money. You'll note that nobody bothered to file a statement against in the voter guide. That's because nobody's against it.
26th-Oct-2006 06:50 am (UTC)
Or they're too chickenshit to admit they're against it.
This page was loaded Aug 24th 2017, 10:32 am GMT.