Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drunks

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Alison Holcomb Vs. Kshama Sawant: Who's Got Your Hypothetical Vote?

Posted by on Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:05 PM

Yesterday, the Seattle Weekly reported that Alison Holcomb is seriously considering running for city council. That's great news! We've been fans of hers for a long time. But the last time Holcomb's name was tossed around for city council, polls circulated that pitted her against Mike O'Brien and Nick Licata. While we love Holcomb, Dominic Holden said at the time that he didn't want her to run against the (then) two most progressive members of the council. Seems like good advice to me!

Well, now it sounds like Holcomb would likely be targeting Kshama Sawant's seat. And that sucks. I agree with Seattlish on this one: We need more progressive members of the council. We don't need to kick the most progressive members of the council to the curb. I also intensely dislike Holcomb's characterization of Sawant in the Weekly interview:

Holcomb, a resident of Capitol Hill, said Sawant is not an effective messenger for the cause of economic inequality, finding alternatives to the city’s regressive tax system, “and our inability to fund education.” She added, “You don’t effect change without a broad coalition, and her rhetoric is all about ‘you are a capitalist pig,’ no matter what the size of your business.”

Huh. Really? Because I'd argue that with her spearheading of the $15 NOW movement, Sawant did more to combat income inequality than any other politician in the city. She's been effective, and she's been a voice for people who otherwise feel as though they've been silenced by the political process. I'm not willing to follow Holcomb down that road when there are politicians like Sally Clark sitting on the council taking up space. I'd argue that we've got way too many coalition-builders and not enough politicians who actually, you know, do stuff on the city council. And I'd also argue that Holcomb doesn't need to launch what strikes me as anti-socialist fear-mongering that mischaracterizes Sawant's position when she's got her own excellent record to stand on.

But that's what I think. What do you think?

 

Comments (59) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Someone serious PLEASE RUN AGAINST CLARK.

Appointed by the Council, reelected with incumbent advantage (and no opponent? someone check), no spine, and a total bench warmer who talks out of both sides of her mouth to be sure to appease everyone and bog us down in Seattle Process.

DUMP CLARK.
Posted by Try it out for free on July 17, 2014 at 12:21 PM · Report this
2
Or run against the Lesser Seattle council member Gooden--Wanted to use a license tab fee for roads instead of transit and had nothing to say about Police Accountability.
Posted by neo-realist on July 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM · Report this
dnt trust me 3
Fear mongering? You call this fear mongering?
Murder the mothers of the opposition, their children are little snakes. Let's get to the level of grotesque fear mongering they have in the Middle East.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/16/…
Posted by dnt trust me on July 17, 2014 at 12:26 PM · Report this
4
Sounds like she's willing to play for the establishment democrats with comments like that. And if she's willing to placate to them over Sawant, she'll placate to them on the council. Fake out liberalism. So, no, fuck the female Murray.
Posted by Bloated Jesus is Bloated on July 17, 2014 at 12:27 PM · Report this
5
Is there a reason everyone thinks they know that Holcomb is a progressive other than on civil liberties issues (for which she is justifiably a hero?) So far she has explored running against Licata & O'Brien in 2013 — the most progressive members of council on economic justice, and now Sawant in 2015 — at least as progressive as those 2. Her platform so far seems to be listening to businesses. Is she actually a progressive on economic issues? Doesn't seem like it....
Posted by Fat-tailed on July 17, 2014 at 12:28 PM · Report this
6
Will Holcomb, for example, work to amend I-502 to allow more cannabis shops to open up?
Posted by neo-realist on July 17, 2014 at 12:35 PM · Report this
DOUG. 7
And one more reason why district elections suck: The roster of potential incumbents to run against goes from 9 to 3.

Thanks a lot SECB. At least Goldy had the balls to call you on your bullshit endorsement last year. (What happened to that guy?)
Posted by DOUG. http://www.dougsvotersguide.com on July 17, 2014 at 12:43 PM · Report this
8
Yes. Sawant managed to get a MW hike. After the inevitable compromise.

But for fuck sake. It's nonsense like this that Holcomb is talking about:

SEATTLE — Seattle City Council member-elect Kshama Sawant told Boeing machinists her idea of a radical option, should their jobs be moved out of state
“The workers should take over the factories, and shut down Boeing’s profit-making machine”

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/seattle-…


And you know god damned well she used to spout delusional bullshit like that about collectivizing Microsoft and Amazon, etc all the time. Which would be an abject disaster even if you could pull it off and you guys know it. It's too bad nobody at the Stranger confronts that horseshit when you interview her, you'd be doing her a big favor.

Anyway. Sawant realizes she's an actual politician that is actually accountable now. So she keeps her trap mostly shut. But you can see that crazy "collectivize" shit just bubbling underneath the surface.

So if somebody runs against her and actually confronts that delusional nonsense, she will get destroyed in the next election. She'll either have to back away from it - and loose the loony moonie eyed left - or embrace it and lose anybody that actually lives on planet earth.

Therefor I'd rather have that next seat be Holcombe than another developer shill.

It would be ideal to get both. But face it. Sawant is going to be vulnerable.
Posted by tkc on July 17, 2014 at 12:46 PM · Report this
9
Isn't Holcomb limited in who she can run against by the new district system? Doesn't she have to run in the district where she resides (unless she wants to run for one of the at-large seats)? She probably couldn't run against Sally Clark even if she wanted to.
Posted by Pierrot Lunaire on July 17, 2014 at 12:49 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 10
@ 7, neighborhood representation rules. You're too stuck on how it's always been to see that.

Hey, Stranger - maybe Holcomb is challenging Sawant because she lives there? I hope the new districts include a residency requirement, or else it was a crappy idea to go yhat way after all.
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 17, 2014 at 12:50 PM · Report this
11
Sawant's toast and you know it.
Posted by dak7e on July 17, 2014 at 12:58 PM · Report this
DOUG. 12
@10: Does it "rule" when your representative doesn't represent you?

Does it "rule" that two-thirds of the City Council doesn't need to bother answering my emails because I can't vote for them?

Does it "rule" that I live west of I-5, yet my district includes all Lake Washington-adjacent properties from Laurelhurst to Sand Point Country Club?
Posted by DOUG. http://www.dougsvotersguide.com on July 17, 2014 at 1:04 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 13
@8: sawant wasn't elected by the "loony, moonie-eyed left". she can safely move to the center, keep her trap shut about seizing the means of production, and not lose a significant # of voters as a result.

where are these hypothetical "leftists" going to go anyway?
Posted by Max Solomon on July 17, 2014 at 1:06 PM · Report this
14
I agree quite strongly with the broad unity coalition type actions. They really are what get programs off the ground and keep them there.

I do not however agree that Sawant is opposed to that method of action- her political party is in debt and is hemorrhaging money like there's no tomorrow, and this backs them into a corner where they need to generate revenue to continue to function- this is where the credit stealing and donation mongering come from, not a failure to work with others in good faith.
Posted by rainierred on July 17, 2014 at 1:14 PM · Report this
15
The Left-Liberals have got there undies in a knot that an open Socialist, AND a Trotskyist is winning over their base. They are scared and this Alison Holcomb sounds like a fool trying to be a hero.
Posted by Fallbreaker on July 17, 2014 at 1:16 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 16
@ 12, you're mistaking having your own personal clone who shares your every position with someone to whom you can talk to about very specific, practical, and possibly boring (to you) problems and have that person take your concerns seriously and work to get them resolved, even if they fail your purity test.

Complaining about the others not answering your emails makes as much sense as complaining that the people who represent Spokane in the state and US House not answering your email.

If your districts were drawn poorly, that's a legitimate complaint. That does suck.
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 17, 2014 at 1:21 PM · Report this
DOUG. 17
@16: You missed my point about answering emails.

Currently all nine City Councilmembers are accountable to me (or at least to my vote), and therefore have a vested interest in my concerns. Next year that number will be three, with the other six not giving a flying fuck what my concerns are.

I prefer the current system, and not just because I'm "stuck" on it.
Posted by DOUG. http://www.dougsvotersguide.com on July 17, 2014 at 1:47 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 18
@ 17, incorrect. I got your point all right. So riddle me this: they may be theoretically accountable now, but again. Which one is going to take a PERSONAL interest in your very local concern? How efficient is it to blast all nine of them in the hopes that one will give a shit?

Your local rep is going to be more invested in your neighborhood, especially if you live in an easy to ignore part if town like Bitter Lake. Those people deserved better than they get under an entirely at-large council gives them.
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 17, 2014 at 1:55 PM · Report this
19
Sawant. Sawant unless something batshit insane happens between now and when I drop off my vote.

Ever since $15 came into prominence, she has rarely disappointed me as a councilwoman. Plus, she pulls the conversation towards progressive routes; that alone is worth the benefit of any doubt from me.

The bonus of every corporatist internally self-combusting every time they hear her name is just icing on the cake.
Posted by themightywoozie on July 17, 2014 at 1:58 PM · Report this
20
@13 She won't be able to keep her trap shut when her opponent - who ever that will be - runs ads of Sawant's old Occupy speeches where she goes off the fucking rails about collectivizing Amazon - now the fastest growing high-paying employer in Seattle. That's what I'd do if I were running against her.

I'd LOVE to get both. I like Sawant in there. In spite of her crazy bullshit and populist cult (I abhor populism if it's Tea Party populism of Socialist Populism it always goes bad, always). But because of how the district elections work that probably won't be possible.

You know Big Money is gong to come after Sawant. Hard. She won last time by being Not Richard Conlin. That's why I and most people voted for her. She won't have that luxury this time.

So either we get somebody like Holcomb in there with a shred of integrity... or you get a total business lackey.

"where are these hypothetical "leftists" going to go anyway?"


Well. Exactly. Here on SLOG to yell at Seattle to all be vegans while sitting home in their aPodments clutching their worn Howard Zinn manifestoes doing the same inert whiney nothing they do every election cycle.

But Sawant still won't want to alienate them if she starts backing away from her crazy economic fantasies. It will be a difficult position for her.
Posted by tkc on July 17, 2014 at 1:59 PM · Report this
21
Allison is a traitor, and was from the beginning, as I said four or five years ago, or more--back when she worked for the ACLU.
Posted by Bill Allyn on July 17, 2014 at 1:59 PM · Report this
22
Allison is a traitor, and was from the beginning, as I said four or five years ago, or more--back when she worked for the ACLU. I think Sawant would be a great choice, even if her competition weren't so very, very evil. But as it stands, Sawant against ALLISON? Why is it even a question?
Posted by Bill Allyn on July 17, 2014 at 2:03 PM · Report this
23
I knew this would happen when Der Stranger endorsed Frank Chopp over that wonderful candidate of the socialist side who is running for his hapless seat! (OK, a little bit of sarcasm, there.)

But this is to be expected, that establishment bullcrap types like Holcomb (and others) will be used as attack dogs against and honest-to-god for the people councilmember like Councilmember Sawant!

Just like with the Seattle Monorail Project, the Community Development Roundtable couldn't and wouldn't leave it alone; intelligent transportation options are not an option for Seattle, only what the Roundtable decides should be our transportation systems and choices!

So, too, the Roundtable wants Sawant gone, and this will continue to happen, the fact that The Stranger staff, or at least some easily misguided fools on it, like Holcomb is simply more positive proof that they can't go beyond the most shallow surfaces.
Posted by sgt_doom on July 17, 2014 at 2:04 PM · Report this
DOUG. 24
@18: I don't need to blast all nine. I can pick and choose who I email based upon the issue. Is it transit? Is it bike lanes? Is it parks? Who heads up what committee, or has an interest in each issue?

And, of course, I can still do that with district representation. The big difference is only three councilmembers are accountable to me.
Posted by DOUG. http://www.dougsvotersguide.com on July 17, 2014 at 2:05 PM · Report this
25
Do we have any sense of which incumbents are likely to run at-large? Because that's who she might want to challenge, since challenging anyone else other than Sawant would mean carpet-bagging it to another neighborhood.

(By the way, the two most progressive candidates fighting it out is presumably what The Stranger wanted, since they were so supportive of districts. Surely they weren't so short-sighted that they couldn't see this would be (one of) the likely outcomes from the NIMBY-funded, NIMBY-empowering plan they were cheering on?).
Posted by david jw on July 17, 2014 at 2:10 PM · Report this
26
@21 Traitor? Maybe start by explaining who the fuck you are and what the fuck are you're talking about.
Posted by tkc on July 17, 2014 at 2:11 PM · Report this
27
By the way, the two most progressive candidates fighting it out is presumably what The Stranger wanted...


Exactly what I was thinking. How is this not a good thing?
Posted by tkc on July 17, 2014 at 2:12 PM · Report this
28
Ms. Sawant has proven herself to be the most effective person on the council, and she has done so while making compromises while not compromising her core beliefs.
If Ms. Holcomb believes she can be an effective progressive voice on the council, she should run for the at large seat or move to the 5th - that seat is wide open.
Posted by Pol Pot on July 17, 2014 at 2:29 PM · Report this
29
after Alison spent the last couple years lying to the people of Washington I'm surprised anyone's dumb enough to even think about voting for her. total scumbag liar. worse than Clark.
Posted by FM710 on July 17, 2014 at 2:32 PM · Report this
watchout5 30
@8 u mad bro?
Posted by watchout5 http://www.overclockeddrama.com on July 17, 2014 at 2:45 PM · Report this
31
I have no idea what that means.
Posted by tkc on July 17, 2014 at 3:37 PM · Report this
Phil Perspective 32
tkc:
Tell that to the people who work in Amazon's warehouses. I'm sure you've seen the articles in Mother Jones and elsewhere. You do know that Boeing admitted that moving production to South Carolina is because of the unions, right? Maybe you don't give a crap about your neighbors, but some of us do. How do you propose to give power back to the people? Corporations aren't people, despite Willard Romney and John Roberts thinking otherwise. How successful is capitalism when, if left unchecked, it just encourages a race to the bottom?
Posted by Phil Perspective on July 17, 2014 at 3:39 PM · Report this
Nick CapHill 33
Asking The Stranger readers if they support Sawant over Halcomb is a little like asking their readers if they prefer the Weekly over the Stranger. Hmm, let me predict this pull will have Sawant ahead?
Posted by Nick CapHill http://thestranger.com on July 17, 2014 at 3:49 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 34
I honestly care about this about as Stranger readers would the Republican primary (which is to say, not much), but I have to call this line out:
"She's (Sawant) been effective, and she's been a voice for people who otherwise feel as though they've been silenced by the political process."
What? Are you telling me lefties in Seattle feel "silenced"? When the mayor supports 15Now, universal pre-k, maternity leave, higher taxes, and every other progressive program and every election in this city, including this one if it happens, is extreme progressive vs VERY extreme progressive, how the hell could Sawant's kind of people feel "silenced by the process"?
And it should be noted that the GOP usually gets about 20-22% of the vote in Seattle, and libertarians probably get 3-5%. Want to talk about a group that is silenced in this city? Try conservatives and libertarians. This is our city too but thanks to the runoff process we can't even get a token candidate on the ballot for a city position.
But I doubt if we ever did elect a fiscal conservative, which may be possible in the newly created 7th and 1st districts, that Der SStranger would ever say said council person would be "giving a voice to those who feel left out of the process."
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 17, 2014 at 5:51 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 35
Actually, considering that it was Sawant who is forcing my job to close down at the end of next year when their lease goes up thanks to the minimum wage increase, forcing me out job, I'll go behind her opponent.
Sorry, but when you do something that results in my losing my job, you don't get any support from me.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 17, 2014 at 6:06 PM · Report this
36
@24, get over it. District representation has been set for the near future, so your complaining is both moot and boring.
Posted by sarah70 on July 17, 2014 at 6:22 PM · Report this
37
Sawant has most definitely used incendiary language when attacking and demonizing all businesses in Seattle as the 1%. This will eventually work against her in the long run as business gets behind her opponent every election, and challenges the $18 minimum wage that was passed every year until both fall. Business in progressive Seattle have never had a unifying political cause to rally behind, getting rid of Sawant is just that. It is really just a response in kind to her demonizing, those she has demonized now demonize her back and nothing gets people mobilized like opposition (look at the gop base).
Posted by $15Now=Bizarro Tea Party on July 17, 2014 at 6:23 PM · Report this
38
Constant has drunk & regurgitated so much of the SA kool aid that soon there will be none left for others. And all of it fed to him baby bird style by Goldy.
Posted by M. Wells on July 17, 2014 at 6:30 PM · Report this
39
I'm fairly sure Holcombs representation of Sawant is lifted directly from the strangers 'new column!' piece http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/new-c…
Posted by 23kid on July 17, 2014 at 7:13 PM · Report this
40
I'm not crazy about everything that Sawant has done. But she voted in favor of campaign finance reform. So she has my vote.

Would Holcomb vote in favor of campaign finance reform? Maybe, maybe not. A campaign statement, even a very good one, isn't the same as an actual, on-the-record vote. I can't justify voting out someone who is actively working towards fixing the single biggest problem with American politics.
Posted by aleks on July 17, 2014 at 7:51 PM · Report this
41
@38- sometimes it's hard to remember that you were recently a decent seeming person running an excellent, kick ass bookstore.
What happened?
Posted by Pol Pot on July 17, 2014 at 8:58 PM · Report this
42
@41 I am exactly that same person, Pol. The fact that you see a dissonance perhaps says more abut you than about me.
Posted by M. Wells on July 17, 2014 at 9:39 PM · Report this
43
@ Pol Pot

Could you please explain the reason you use Pol Pot as a screen name?
Is it meant to be cute in a hipster ironic way?
Showing your sophistication?
(You do know who Pol Pot was, I assume.)
Maybe you'll use Hitler or Stalin next time and be even cuter?
Posted by caution&daring on July 18, 2014 at 7:05 AM · Report this
44
Holcomb is currently in another Slog comment section addressing you idiots as if you were people, much less intelligent people interested in debate. I'd much rather keep the socialist than go for the ditz engaging a brick wall.
Posted by treehugger on July 18, 2014 at 8:17 AM · Report this
45
yes. run against Sawant!
Posted by swakinc on July 18, 2014 at 11:44 AM · Report this
46
Sawant is going to go down big time. She has a large target on her back figuratively speaking and many will take aim. I am not a fan but respect what she has done.

I also believe that a public statewide vote on minimum wage will pull that back as well. The mw situation is so divisive to the degree that it has different classes of employers (including the galling notion that franchisees are large companies!), and ignores the handsome compensation of many in the hospitality space - who want nothing to do with this since once servers are receiving a 'living wage' than folks like you and I can smugly thank them for their service with a smile rather than a tip.

Sawant is shrill, angry and tiresome. Politics includes the ability to play well with others - something increasingly rare from City Hall to Congress.
Posted by Park Place on July 18, 2014 at 5:08 PM · Report this
47
#43: Oh shut up with the shrill preaching.
Posted by Jizzlobber on July 19, 2014 at 11:56 AM · Report this
48
46: Yes, it's all smug satisfaction with us living wage people. That's all it's about.

Sawant doesn't do herself in favors, but almost every argument against here is idiotic. It all amounts to the fact that a socialist is actually a socialist. OMG, A SOCIALIST HAS SOCIALIST BELIEFS. HOLY SHIT.
Posted by Jizzlobber on July 19, 2014 at 11:59 AM · Report this
49
46: Yes, it's all smug satisfaction with us living wage people. That's all it's about.

Sawant doesn't do herself any favors, but almost every argument against her here is idiotic. It all amounts to the fact that a socialist is actually a socialist. OMG, A SOCIALIST HAS SOCIALIST BELIEFS. HOLY SHIT. Everyone was perfectly well aware of her rhetoric when she was elected the first time. Why would her supporters suddenly give a shit about videos they already saw during the first campaign? Are there some new videos out there with damning new evidence against her. She's already a known quantity. Most opposition to her seems to be coming from the same people it came from last time, anti-socialists who will never support a socialist candidate anyway. If anything, the fear mongering from that camp probably strengthened her campaign because it was self-evidently knee-jerk reactionary paranoia. Until the worst fears of the anti-15 crowd are realized and small businesses and franchises start dying in record numbers (I'll believe it when I see it), no one is going to care about Sawant's Occupy rhetoric.
Posted by Jizzlobber on July 19, 2014 at 12:13 PM · Report this
50
#35: Well, let's see, your user name is CollectivismSucks and you've opposed Sawant since she first ran for office. So why are you pretending she lost your vote because of your job situation?
Posted by Jizzlobber on July 19, 2014 at 12:19 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 51
@50
I'm against every Seattle politician because NONE of them come even close to reflecting my values. Republicans get 22% or more of the vote in Seattle, but their views are never reflected locally by any politician and they never so much as consider the views of nearly a quarter of the voting public. Neither do my libertarian views. I don't like any of Seattle's politicians. But Sawant advocated something that cost me my job and got it passed, so she's the one I hate the most. Not because of her politics alone they're all essentially socialists, but because she spearheaded an effort that is costing me my job and hurt me directly.
But I do not now and will NEVER live on Capitol Hill (or "hipster hill" as I call it) so Sawant never had my vote to begin with.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 19, 2014 at 12:59 PM · Report this
52
Whether or not a business owner is a "capitalist pig" or not has NOTHING to do with the size of their business and EVERYTHING to do with how they treat their workers, customers, and the environment. There are plenty of small businesses out there that pay their workers chump change, treat them like shit, lie to their customers and don't give a fuck how much they're polluting. And there are big businesses out there that behave pretty well.

Small business =/= Good business

Big business =/= Bad business

Make a note of it.
Posted by Always east coaster on July 19, 2014 at 5:12 PM · Report this
venomlash 53
@51: "Sawant advocated something that cost me my job"
Let me know when you actually get laid off due to belt-tightening in the wake of a higher minimum wage. Until then, it's a lie to say that; try instead "Sawant advocated something that I think will cost me my job". Remember, your opinions are not necessarily reality.
Posted by venomlash on July 20, 2014 at 5:32 AM · Report this
54
@47
STFU and I'll say it again:

Could you please explain the reason you use Pol Pot as a screen name?
Is it meant to be cute in a hipster ironic way?
Showing your sophistication?
(You do know who Pol Pot was, I assume.)
Maybe you'll use Hitler or Stalin next time and be even cuter?
Posted by caution&daring on July 20, 2014 at 11:18 AM · Report this
55
54: Maybe s/he thinks it's amusing. Yeah, some people enjoy using questionable user names to get a rise out of people like you. Does it really require an explanation? Do you think this person is unaware of who Pol Pot is or what he did? Do you really think this person is a genuine supporter of the Khmer Rouge's ideology? If the answers to these questions are "no," then all you're doing is making a diverting argument (instead of addressing the post, you go after the user name) or feeding a troll.
Posted by Jizzlobber on July 20, 2014 at 12:25 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 56
@53
Why is it so hard for you people to understand how a lease works? My job signed a lease the expires in December 2015. My boss TOLD US ALL AT A MEETING that she's not renewing the lease. She was nice enough to give us over a year's warning, but still, that's a job I'm losing. And she said, point blank, the new minimum wage has a big part of it.
So people should only wait until they're handed a pink slip? So I guess you're angry at the Stranger for talking about Microsoft layoffs several days before they happened?
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 57
@55
If someone had "Bush lover" or "Romney Army" as a screen name, no one on Der SSstranger would let them live it down, even if it was ironic (Bush is only slightly less popular than Pol Pot)
And yes, there are people in America who like Pol Pot...mostly white, upperclass champagne socialists, of course: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editori…
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 20, 2014 at 1:56 PM · Report this
58
Hey @55

I am asking a question of Pol Pot, not you.

So kindly cease blathering.
Posted by caution&daring on July 20, 2014 at 5:58 PM · Report this
venomlash 59
@56: Your employer not renewing a lease != you are getting laid off
Have you considered the outlandish possibility that your employer is perhaps relocating rather than closing up shop? And even if your boss has said explicitly that all of you are getting laid off, the correct phrasing is "this law will cost me my job", future tense.
@57: There were left-wing communists in America who supported the Khmer Rouge. There were right-wing nationalists in America who supported Hitler.

@58: "Hey @55
I am asking a question of Pol Pot, not you.
So kindly cease blathering."
Let's look at post #55: "54:..."
Okay, what was Jizzlobber replying to of post #54?
"@47
STFU and I'll say it again:"
Okay, who posted #47, which caution&daring replied to in #54? None other than Jizzlobber. So yes, I'd say that caution&daring DID directly ask a question of Jizzlobber. Q.E.D. motherfucker.
Posted by venomlash on July 21, 2014 at 11:39 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy