The Mike Briggs/Greg Owens show.

Odd that you never see them in the same room together, since they likely should get a hotel room.

In response to Rep. Jim Moeller wearing out yet another set of knee pads and breaking his arm congratulating himself for helping to once again destroy the will of the people on the super-majority tax requirement, the bobbse twins spoke thusly:

• y
  

  Mike Briggs · Top Commenter · Works at Civic Activist
  

  I know most all people will not like tolls to cross the Columbia but having traveled a great deal over the U.S., they are common. It is a popular form of a user tax. We need a bridge and one of the components to help pay for this bridge will be tolls. No matter WHAT KIND of bridge they build- there will be tolls. You can count on this. It's just a fact of life for those living in this area.

  Reply · Like
  

  about an hour ago

Nonsense, of course.

People don't have a problem paying tolls to cross the Columbia.  We have a problem paying tolls for a project we haven't been asked about, that we don't want, don't need, won't make any difference, will keep us in debt for generations, will suck up all available transportation dollars indefinitely, will result in permanent, generational tolls on a bridge that DOES NOT NEED to be replaced and which we can't afford.

We do not need the I-5 Bridge replaced, and it isn't going to be for some decades since Washington State will not fund Oregon's rip off.

They are not GOING to build a bridge, so there won't be any tolls.

You can count on that. it's a fact of life for those living in this area.

 And then his buddy, because you rarely see one without the other: .

 

Greg Owens · Top Commenter · Camas, Washington

James Edmondson: The right to bear arms doesn't mean that certain restrictions cannot be put into place, James. Sporting rifles? Since when is an automatic rifle sporting?

Mike Briggs: While traveling in Florida, toll roads were common and tolls were built into the taxi fares. Didn't hear a single person complain about it.

Reply · Like

· 38 minutes ago

First of all, being a complete ignorant about what is or isn't an "automatic weapon" (not unlike the Klingon Princess, as far as that goes) doesn't help.

No one is talking about "automatic weapons."  "Automatic weapons" are, of course, what are regularly called "machine guns."  And who's talking about that?

And no where does the 2nd Amendment refer to sport.  It isn't ABOUT sport: it's about defending against government tyranny.

Secondly, this ain't Florida.  You love tolls so much, then stay there.

Thirdly, given your well documented and massive political ignorance, no one cares what you have, or have not "heard."

Apparently the leftist whack jobs don't get it: The CRC scam is DOA; they just haven't read the memo.

The funding will not survive the state Senate.  The end.

And hopefully, people are going to jail.

And then this tidbit:

Greg Owens · Top Commenter · Camas, Washington

Tell us, Columbian Editorial Staff, should we ignore the constitution on issues we don't like? Is it okay to destroy the integrity of our constitution on any issue? There is a proper way to address the issue, and it should be followed. If people are demanding a super majority to raise taxes, then getting a super majority to make it so shouldn't be an issue.

However, we should listen to the warnings of the founding fathers and beware of the tyranny of the minority. Should 1/3 + 1 really have control over a majority of the electorate?

Now, God knows Tell us, Columbian Editorial Staff, should we ignore the constitution on issues we don't like? Is it okay to destroy the integrity of our constitution on any issue?I don't speak for the whackjobs running the Lazy C, but I'll take a swing at this:

1.  This, of course, has nothing to do with the Constitution...What is driving this is the will of the people, repeatedly expressed at the polls.

So, for the whack jobs like Greg, let me reframe the question:

Tell us, whack jobs like Greg, should we ignore the repeatedly expressed at the polls will of the people on issues we don't like? Is it okay to destroy the integrity of democracy on any issue?

What gutless slime like Moeller will refuse to do is to put this to a vote to amend the Constitution.

See, when you're scum like Moeller, "will of the people" is an avoidable inconvienient truth.

2.  What's driving this is that the tyranny of the fringe-left nutters controlling government which  keeps this from ever being put to a vote.

It's not unlike the CRC scam: they don't put it to a vote because they don't want to know what we think or want on the subject.  That truth points out the absurdity of this moronic observation:

There is a proper way to address the issue, and it should be followed. If people are demanding a super majority to raise taxes, then getting a super majority to make it so shouldn't be an issue.

But it is an issue, since nut jobs like Moeller don't want to allow us to have a vote.  And since it IS an issue... then what?  Just continue to ignore the will of the people?

And then this stupidity:

However, we should listen to the warnings of the founding fathers and beware of the tyranny of the minority. Should 1/3 + 1 really have control over a majority of the electorate?

The Founding Fathers, of course, were refering to the tyranny of the MAJORITY, NOT the minority, you simple idiot.  

And if the people want the government set up that way, then the answer to your question is "yes."  if we want a specific tax enacted, then we can enact it via initiative.

In that respect, John Kerry was right: democracy DOES mean you can be stupid.... and you are a case in point.

If only Owens would be more articulate... make some sense... and not continue to sound like a petulant, fringe-left playground blowhard.  Crushing his positions would be even MORE fun.  Right now, it's like shooting fish in a bucket.  Everything from moronic factual inaccuracy to non-sequitorial positions that make me cringe with their idiocy.

Sigh.  Perhaps he'll grow up, and then... who knows what will happen?