Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In News
Editors' Picks
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
1101 East Pike St. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98122
1101 East Pike St. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98122
Kudos to Iowa and New England for supporting (civil) marriage. And kudos to the Episcopal Church.
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA.
To the marriage foes, and sexually phobic, please find something else to do with your time, because life's too short. Find love.
Marriages are firstly a civil matter, as marriage licenses are issued by and recorded in town halls not church halls.
And in America, we have freedom of and freeedom from religion.
Far from being defenders/promoters of religious freedom, they make a complete mockery of relgion, using it as little more than justification to preserve a way of life principled not on service to humankind and God, but plain cruelty of intent and selfishenss towards one's neighbors, the precise opposite of how a sincerely practiced Christian faith would call people to live.
Shame on these wovles in sheep's clothing for bearing false witness against their neighbors.
Those people need to be atheists, but again I am not sure if the atheists even want those people in their club. They are in deed wolves in sheep's clothing. Shame on them.
I was amused by headlines claiming "Bush lied about...X". As if politico-s telling lies was newsworthy. Be aware, politicians are professional liars. The Stranger is doing a fine job of educating and agitating their readers, all the readers need is to organize.
This is how an old 'revolutionary' slogan can become vogue again:
Educate, Agitate, Organize.
Are you so sure in your views that you must censor anyone who questions them?
Freedom of speech works both ways, staff at the Strangerā¦.
Dominic:
Pot apparently makes YOU paranoid dude. Some folks smoke too much and they just starts seeing things that are not there. Sure Larry Stickney (Larry) didnāt address your question and hung up on you. Did you read how nasty an article you wrote about him in June 2009? Most people donāt treat reporters kindly after having their personal lives ripped apart for all to see. He might be a little mad at the Stranger too for printing it. Iām sure Larry most likely has had zero calls from your readers who think he is some kind of monster versus a fellow US citizen with a different opinion.
Larry might have a wife and kids to protect from all the new fans he has gotten, thanks to you. Iāve watched this entire Ref-71 debate since your June article Know Thy Enemy. I have had a long time to think about it and Iāve come to a conclusion: Dominic, you are an intolerant mean spirited little twit who demonizes people with whom you disagree. You use the power of your position to completely trash what you see as your enemy.
Larry has a right to his opinion, as do you. I donāt recall seeing anything in the pro Ref-71 camp about the anti-Ref-71 folks being āThe Enemyā. I do recall in the news that the Anti-Ref 71 crowd threaten to publish everyone who signed Ref-71 names and information on the Internet so gay activist may harass them. Which group between the pro-Ref 71 and the Anti Ref-71 do you think is behaving like KGB thugs and which group is exercising their rights by the rule of law?
Dominic, for the record, the real enemy fly jets into buildings and try to sneak military grade anthrax across the border to kill thousands of Americans; gay and straight alike. They donāt gather signatures for a referendum to give a choice to the voters about an issue of which they disagree. Iāve been around politics in Washington State for several years. Not once have I ever seen an Initiative or Referendum at the city, county or state level that didnāt have poorly trained signature gatherers. Some will do or say anything to get a signature on the dotted line. Like all legal documents, folks should read what theyāre signing before they sign it. This is not new or even remotely surprising. The military has been using this promise anything tactic for years. I find it odd and a somewhat paranoid that you are making such an issue about itā¦
Cut down on the reefer, dude!
Is it because I said he was paranoid and the pro-71 folks are not the enemy but the people flying jets into buildings are the enemy?
Could it be that poorly trained signature gathers have been knowingly or unknowingly misrepresenting their petitions since the advent of petitions; completely re-enforcing the suggestion that Dominic Holden is paranoid and seeing things that are just not their?
What does the Stranger Fear, a different opinion than their own?
Re-post my fair but critical comments on Dominic Holdenās article or quit calling yourself an alternative newspaperā¦
When we do delete comments, it's because they're off topic, threatening, etc., and we leave a note explaining why the comment was removed. But we don't delete comments just because they're critical of the reporters. I mean, seriously, have you read the comments on Slog? Lots of them are critical.
Freedom of speech and the public records act give validity to the anti-71 side's reporting on the sponsors and their requests for public records. If any of what Dominic wrote was false, then certainly there'd be retaliation from Stickney's camp, don't you think? And where do you see people acting "like KGB thugs"? As I recall it, the KGB made sure to suppress freedom of speech, freedom of press and enforced government secrecy, and so far, only one side has met that criteria perfectly.
Oh, and that side also lies. Like saying the DP bill promotes the teaching of gay sex (when there's absolutely no mention of that ANYWHERE in the bill).
It's a hard line to toe when you believe elderly couples and normal loving families should be denied rights, so why not slash and burn your way to righteousness? Why not lie your way into god's love?
By the way, I think your comments were deleted because of the economy. Kilobytes cost money, so you shouldn't waste them!
That is an unwarranted generalization from a one person anecdote.
At least the people who are organizing R-71 don't intimidate voters like the www.knowthyneighbor.org group.
You stated in your comments:
If any of what Dominic wrote was false, then certainly there'd be retaliation from Stickney's camp, don't you think?
Dominic called the Pro-Ref71 crowd the enemy. This is certainly false. The Pro-Ref 71 crowds are FELLOW AMERICANS with a different opinion. They are not the enemy, as I wrote in my earlier comments. This is a serious mistake on the part of Dominic. Because he labels the Pro-71 crowd āThe Enemyā, he and the Anti-Ref 71 crowd are justified in doing whatever the hell they want to destroy the Pro-Ref 71 crowd. Nothing is off the table.
This is a HUGE error on the part of Dominic and the Anti-Ref 71 crowd.. Just because a fellow American disagrees with you on some legislation, does not give them the right to treat the Pro-Ref 71 as the enemy. Remember; do on to others, as you would have them do unto you. No one would want their name and information on the Internet so some nut cases / activist could harasses them and their families over their political beliefs.
The Pro-Ref-71 leadership must suffer under Dominicās vicious ripping apart of their lives because they know as public figures they have no case due to our nations freedom of speech laws and media.
Holden is over the top on this, which places him in one of two categories:
A) He is a selfish self-serving little twit who hates people who disagrees with him to the point that he must destroy them.
B) He is paranoid due to overuse to drug abuse or mental defect and makes people enemies where there are none.
The other problem with this āthey are the enemyā mentality is that it can spiral out of control and someone gets hurt which is not the intention of either side.
The answer is not some kind of government intervention into the referendum process. You will never be able to verify that every petitioner is being 100% truthful, and you as a citizen should know that the incentive is to get as many signatures as possible, so caveat emptor.
The answer is not some kind of government intervention into the referendum process. You will never be able to verify that every petitioner is being 100% truthful, and you as a citizen should know that the incentive is to get as many signatures as possible, so caveat emptor.
Every petitioner is required to have a copy of the legislation on hand. The answer is to read it before you sign.
"for the record, the real enemy fly jets into buildings and try to sneak military grade anthrax across the border to kill thousands of Americans"
You do realize you're talking about mainly other Americans, yes? Consider what ensued after these events and who benefited from them. What outside influence was involved was INVITED and never publicly named.
I'll stop there.
Sorry for the off-topic post.
This is why Dominic Holdenās article Know Thy Enemy in June 2009 was inherently dangerous. No one stood up to denounce him and therefore others will likely use this tactic again as well as extend it. The Ant-Ref 71 crowds threaten to publish on the Internet everyoneās name and information that signed Ref 71. I have already heard that an unrelated initiative group is considering employing this political tactic against their opposition. It is already proliferating and will in turn, escalate.
We need to always remember, our opposition in debate on an issue, although misguided, are still Americans, not the enemy and therefore treat them, as we would want to be treated by them. It only took 9 years for Hitlerās political faction to go from media demonizing their political enemies to sending them to death camps.
It's called saracsm. It's the kind of humor that goes over your head, clearly.
You need to smoke pot. It will calm your crazy ass down.
If you can get that high, maybe you should consider getting some helpā¦
My enemies are those people who would deny rights that they enjoy to others who have committed no civil transgression. Believing that a person or group of people is wrong does not make someone my enemy, if that was the case then all religious people who believe that they are better than everyone else would be my enemiesā¦and they would be legion. No, simply participating in the last socially acceptable mass psychosis (i.e., if I said that I had an imaginary friend who died for me 2000 years ago, but came back to life, who watches everything that I do, who I talk to every day, and who looks out for me and loves me, and that persons name was Zorgoth instead of Jesus, I would be diagnosed with a mental illness...) does not make someone my enemy. Denying someone 1st class citizen status based on a religious belief makes people my enemy. This quite clearly is a struggle between rationalists and psychotics.
Anyone on the other side of the line is my enemy. The good news is that we are winning and will continue to win. Religious psychos have been bombing, shooting, executing, establishing unjust legal writs, andā¦yes, flying planes into buildings, and everything else that they can think of to limit freedom because of their beliefs, but we will win. We will win because we are right and because we are struggling for freedom.
Put that in your pipe (since you seem to be obsessed with drug use) and smoke it.
Your words unfortunately make my point exactly. You equate the terrorist of 911 with the pro-Ref 71 folks as enemies of yours. You equate bona fide murderers with fellow Americans who happen to not agree with some legislation you favor. You missy, need to examine your soul on this one. This again is the danger of Holdenās article. It rallies the lemmings and simple minded in to an irrational hatred. This is what I feared would happen with his rhetoric.
FYI: Obama is on record as against gay marriage as are the black and Hispanic communities. According to your own words, they are your enemies.
No one is free until we all are free.
Most politicians have to say that they are against gay marriage to pander to the Ftards who believe in special rights for themselves and people exactly like themselves.
Want to find irrational, simple-minded lemmings? Go check out that half-wit Hutchinson in Kirkland, step into a fundi-mosque or synagogue, or see the Rush Limbaugh fan club.
I have had both civil discussions with intelligent people about this matter and been subjected to furious words and abuse at demonstrations by counter-demonstrators (just exercising their right to express themselves, of course). I know who my enemies are and do not desire or require your advice on the topic.
And, unfortunately, instead of arguing the merits of their case, they resort to heavy handed tactics like demonizing their opponents and ridiculing them personally. If your argument for any legislation is tight and full of merit, then there is no need to use the tactics of personal destruction.
There is no perfect freedom. There must be rules and taboos or we have anarchy. We are not free to do what ever we want whenever we want in order to function with the other 6 billion people on the planet.
We sometimes need rules that impair our freedom but if they didnāt exist others would destroy themselves.
This aside, my concern with this Ref-71 issue has been reminding people that this is a policy issue; not a fight for land, food or survival. Yet Dominic Holden and some of the Ant-Ref-71 crowd have treated their opponents as if they must be destroyed versus persuaded. This tactic historically has no positive outcome. It has led to violence, and the death of innocent people. It greatly impairs the health of democracy.
Agree or disagree with Ref-71, this scheme of political attrition and victory at any price needs to be denounced before it becomes a standard political method and escalates.
The most effective way of doing this is for Ref-71 to pass so political leaders see the policy failed, and will refrain from employing it in the future.
The Anti-Ref-71 folks will need to make their case to the voters in November. The Dominic Holdens and the rest of the āKnow Thy Enemyā crowd should be held accountable for Ref-71 passing just as much as Larry Stickney.
As for blaming Dominic for the general leotardation of this whole process, you're being ridiculous.
Please clarify?
Who are the lying hypocrites?
How is my logic flawed?
Set what agenda?
Holdenās reckless opinions on the issue of Ref-71 folks have been overly aggressive and destructive. He references fellow Americans who happen to disagree with him, as āthe enemyā and treats them in a vicious manor.
He is no better than the Pro-life crowd-calling doctors who perform abortions āthe enemyā,āDr. Deathā, ātool of Satinā etc. This rhetoric inflame extremist to unnecessary violence that neither side wants. People have been tragically hurt and killed as recently as first quarter 2009. It is not the just the individual that died that was effected, but his family, the people the witnessed the murder and their families as well as their community.
I donāt want to see people hurt because of a political debate. The Anti-Ref-71 crowd has threatened to publish the info of the signers on the Internet. This is overly aggressive and will lead to more overly aggressive political behavior in other debates if it is not denounced and stopped.
People are going to get hurt and what Iām trying to do to the best of my limited ability is to shout the alarm.
Stop the hate in public debate before someone gets hurt.
We are all Americans, not enemy combatants.
You keep making unsubstantiated claims about how Holden is supposedly agitating for violence, but I have seen NO evidence of anything like that in this article. Try to keep up. And merely calling someone an "enemy" does NOT amount to "dangerous agitation". If you think these people are your friends, you're a moron.
A final point regarding your flawed logic: Repeatedly saying the SAME DAMN THING over and over does NOT constitute an argument. It only means that you're not listening to anybody else, which is ironic, since it's what you're accusing EVERYBODY who disagrees with you of doing, regardless of the content of their reply.
What is your definition of hypocrite missy? Are you suggesting that I am going out trying to incite people into violence when I am actually strongly speaking out against it. This is nonsense. You are spinning YTAH; trying to protect Holden when you know he is guilty of what he is accused of in my writings.
If you canāt see that Holden is not agitating the Anti Ref-71 from his two articles (FYI he references his early June article Know Thy Enemy in his latest article How They Lie.) then you are deceiving yourself. Actually you are very aware what he is doing. You wrote: āI have seen NO evidence of anything like that in this article.ā You could have said āā¦ in any articleā but you didnāt. This is because Holden is agitating people and you are very well aware of it.
This is not a game. In hot button issues like this, calling someone an enemy is agitating. Holden is fanning the flames, he is not trying to persuade.
If someone gets hurt due to this issue, Holden morally will be partially to blame.
FYI: In my earlier comments, I defined why it appeared why signature gathers might have seemed as they were misleading folks. You obviously ignored or didnāt bother to read it. I have not been repeating that message over and over. I also have addressed every comment that has been aimed at me. Folks have argued about why Holdenās work is a problem and I have addressed it. This is not āflawed logicā by definitions the rest of the world uses, missy.
As I wrote in (only one) previous comment, I denounce the same rhetoric by Anti-abortion groups, as I am Holden. They both have agitated the loons, lemmings and zealots. Someone is going to get hurt. You YTAH, are afraid to admit what Holden did is wrong.
For your comment: āIf you think these people are your friends, you're a moron.ā I am not looking for friends, missy; I am trying to help keep this debate from decaying into the violence of the abortion debate or worse. If you would read what I have written objectively, you would see this.
You might also consider taking your own advice with the people you are trying to protectā¦or be a āmoronā as you define it. The choice is yoursā¦
"I defined why it appeared why signature gathers might have seemed as they were misleading folks." WTF? If you're not going to make sense, I can't really argue with you, can I. You have offered no proof of anything in any of your comments.
You can call me "missy" all you like, but it's not going to change the fact that you have no actual point.
1. Any reasonable person would take Holden's original use of the word "Enemy" as obvious hyperbole, used for effect -- not too mention the fact that journalists often do not get to make their own headlines (note that in that article the word enemy is not used once; I cannot speak for "The Stranger", but that is often a layout editor's job -- though I suppose that just shifts your blame to the "The Stranger" at large, but either way: HYPERBOLE (look it up)!!
2. There is never any direct mention of violence, nor is it even implied in any of these articles -- neither Holden's nor any others that I have seen. If you have seen differently, please provide an example.
3. This has nothing to do with "9/11" or terrorists or anything of the sort. Why do you think that so relevant to even bring it up? And if you are relating this "policy" issue in any way to "agitating violence, see point #2 above.
3. I think we can all agree freedom of speech works both ways; I have no problem here. Sure, it sucks when someone is lying to you about the facts of an issue (see current "debate" on health care reform), but I certainly agree it is each voter's responsibility to read before signing. Asking for a copy of the proposed initiative is a great idea -- perhaps it could be a simple requirement (or at least common courtesy) for petitioners to have some copies available? If not to take home, at least to read.
4. Now, publishing petitioners names similarly is similarly a standard "freedom" we enjoy in this country. Public records are public records. This is not a vote or secret ballot of any kind. Again, think before you sign, eh? Essentially, by signing you are saying, "Yes, I will give my support for having a state-wide vote on this issue." I will be curious to see how the court phrases this after that issue gets its full day in court next month (which I hope happens regardless of whether there are enough valid signatures for it to make it to the ballot).
5. You want to debate the "issues"? Stop the petty insults. And stop responding to others' petty insults. Either way, it just makes it look like you do not want "debate", just to, well, insult. Suck it up and make your point, pansies. (Don't hate the playa, hate the game?)
6. Novel idea: Try logic! In my opinion, this is a simple issue: Extend the rights of a few to everyone else. Two people make a partnership. These partnerships have legal rights -- like, oh, say having your partner and your children visit you in the hospital? Shared insurance benefits? Survivor-ship benefits? I think it has been well documented that "non-traditional" partnerships -- i.e. any non-married couple, same sex, opposite sex, young, old -- have a legitimate interest in such benefits that come with legal partnerships (i.e. "traditional" marriage). Legally, that is what marriage is, no? Spiritually/religiously, that is a different matter -- but I believe the constitution includes a statement regarding "freedom of religion". So chose. And let others chose. Respect, and be respected. Don't forget, there are a lot people out there that have a lot at stake here. For them, this is about survival -- survival of there families, survival of their rights to be treated equally, and more. For the rest of us, this is not about taking away from anything we posses; it is about everyone being just as privileged as you and me (not special rights, but equal rights). Can we possible treat everybody equally? What is your problem with that?
I've got more, but I have said enough to start, so your turn! I will argue this with you all day long, if you want, but stop yelling, stop misconstruing, try to make sense (this is that "logic" thing I was talking about), and stop overusing html tags to make your statements bold, would you?
The flaw of your argument is the phrase āANY REASONABLE PERSONā¦ā. This is the problem. It is not the REASONABLE PEOPLE that commit the violence; it is the lemmings, loons and zealots. Holdenās rants are just that; rants. They are not essays trying to convince the skeptical but were written to induce anger in the minds of partisans.
Holden thrives on stirring the pot after smoking it to the point of induced paranoia.
This Ref-71 issue is a political tender box. I only hope that it does not get ignited.
If it passes, it will be the will of the people. Every political maneuver to thwart it was played even by the governor (who delayed the signature gathers as much as 20+ days of the 90 days allotted). What is really interesting is how low the signature rejection rate is; it is lowest in state history according to a Seattle Times article I read last week.
If I were a gambler however, I would bet against it passingā¦it will be close but the Ref-71 folks did not gather enough signatures to have a sufficient rejection buffer; historically speaking of course. If they would have had another 15 days however, they would have had the 30% buffer they needed if my math is correct. The governorās tactic was effective. I canāt help but think that if the roles were reversed, Holden and the anti-Ref 71 crowds would be screaming that they were not given enough time to gather signatures and the governor is cheatingā¦
This will be my last contribution to this article since few will read it from now onward. I did what I could to persuade anyone who took the time to read my comments; calm down and look at the potential problems of Holdenās rhetoric. I hope it was an unnecessary precaution on my part.
By exposing the self-serving agitators to everyone and highlight what they really are we are free to seek the right direction, peacefully.
Be good to one another, and remember; we are all Americans and this is a debate of ideas. It is not a battle to the death.
Holden thrives on stirring the pot after smoking it to the point of induced paranoia.
This Ref-71 issue is a political tender box. I only hope that it does not get ignited.
If it passes, it will be the will of the people. Every political maneuver to thwart it was played even by the governor (who delayed the signature gathers as much as 20+ days of the 90 days allotted). What is really interesting is how low the signature rejection rate is; it is lowest in state history according to a Seattle Times article I read last week.
If I were a gambler however, I would bet against it passingā¦it will be close but the Ref-71 folks did not gather enough signatures to have a sufficient rejection buffer; historically speaking of course. If they would have had another 15 days however, they would have had the 30% buffer they needed if my math is correct. The governorās tactic was effective. I canāt help but think that if the roles were reversed, Holden and the anti-Ref 71 crowds would be screaming that they were not given enough time to gather signatures and the governor is cheatingā¦
This will be my last contribution to this article since few will read it from now onward. I did what I could to persuade anyone who took the time to read my comments; calm down and look at the potential problems of Holdenās rhetoric. I hope it was an unnecessary precaution on my part.
By exposing the self-serving agitators to everyone and highlight what they really are we are free to seek the right direction, peacefully.
Be good to one another, and remember; we are all Americans and this is a debate of ideas. It is not a battle to the death.
I leave you now to Holden and his groupie to spin my comments to the best of their abilities.
//sarcasm off.
In case you would like to watch the count, here is the link.
http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initi…