Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on "These Kids"

1

josh, can you please stop using the term "light slogging?" it makes me think of tampon commercials and, frankly, kind of grosses me out.

thank you.

Posted by kerri harrop | November 7, 2007 12:17 PM
2

"Although, one quick comment on the election: I’m just now realizing that liberal campaigners—and liberal news editors like me—kind of screwed up by not making more noise about Tim Eyman’s super-majority-to-raise-taxes initiative, I-960"

Uh yeah, you think?

Posted by Mrs. Y | November 7, 2007 12:17 PM
3


I-960 just can't be constitutional; any legal experts out there who'd like to weigh in on this?


The fact that we now have to leave this up to Barbara "Procreation Only" Madsen and Gerry "What's a Constitution?" Alexander makes me shudder.

Posted by Original Andrew | November 7, 2007 12:23 PM
4

Is it because all the libs in the know believe it will be declared unconstitutional? Even if it is declared unconstitutional, every wussy legislator in the state will now feel obliged to have a vote on whether to buy 2-ply or 1-ply toilet paper for the capitol toilets. Of course, the reputation of the legislature for trustworthiness in handling the public's business has already been damaged by the state legislatures current terror of voting to spend money without a vote. It's sort of a downward spiral.

Posted by cracked | November 7, 2007 12:26 PM
5

oops. Insert some "public"s before some of the votes... you know what I mean...

Posted by cracked | November 7, 2007 12:28 PM
6

I blame out-of-date textbooks. Modern textbooks containing the updated, abbreviated Bill of Rights might help clear up their confusion, but of course there's no money in the budget to pay for textbooks.

Posted by flamingbanjo | November 7, 2007 12:29 PM
7

Just because you don't like something doesn't make it unconstitutional, and just because you do like something doesn't mean it is constitutional. Why would this be any more unconstitutional than the US Senate requiring 60 votes to cut off debate, for example?

Posted by Brad | November 7, 2007 12:36 PM
8

I think you are giving yourselves too much credit. You spent tons of time defending Venus and even took a pilgrimage to BalMar to mark your ballot and yet she tanked at the polls. I'd like to think that if you had put some time in on defeating I-960 it might have made a difference but I doubt it.

Posted by ya think? | November 7, 2007 12:40 PM
9

@7,

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the issue is whether it's constitutional for an initiative to change the state constitution. Supposedly, only the legislature is allowed to do that.

Posted by keshmeshi | November 7, 2007 12:41 PM
10

Man, instead of an anti-war sit-in, those kids should have held and anti-gays sit-in. They wouldn't have gotten into nearly as much trouble.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | November 7, 2007 12:54 PM
11

#9,

I do not believe it changes the Constitution - it's a statute. It can be overriden in a few years, but not without a political cost.

Posted by Brad | November 7, 2007 12:59 PM
12

josh? you're a LIBERAL reporter? since when? honestly, now.

Posted by adrian | November 7, 2007 1:09 PM
13

Why bother?

It's unconstitutional anyway.

All Eyman initiatives are.

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 7, 2007 1:15 PM
14

I know what we need! An Eyman-sponsored tampon/transit initiative to stop heavy flow days on I-405!

Posted by DaiBando | November 7, 2007 1:31 PM
15

1. Maybe Josh can use the term douche-slogging, for when he's lacking that intellectually fresh feeling.

Posted by Gomez | November 7, 2007 1:37 PM
16

@11 - if the state constitution declares that a majority is sufficient to pass bills in the legislature, then this is changing the state constitution. (And actually, some argue the US Senate filibuster is unconstitutional, too.)

Posted by tsm | November 7, 2007 2:35 PM
17

Lord knows why the fuck Stranger spent more ink, electrons, and energy killing light rail than it did killing an Eyman initiative. No more dope for you guys.

Posted by K | November 7, 2007 2:41 PM
18

Gotta agree with Harrop. Light slogging makes me throw up a little in my mouth, and whatnot.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | November 7, 2007 3:51 PM
19

"Today's forecast calls for light slog in the morning, followed by afternoon douches, and tapering off to slow flow by this evening, with a possibility of endometria shedding after midnight."

Posted by Steve Pool | November 7, 2007 9:40 PM
20

You're an idiot, Josh.

Posted by greenlake | November 7, 2007 11:11 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).