The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) was established in 1973 by Paul M. Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation. It is a membership organisation of state legislators across the U.S. that drafts "model legislation" that is then often drafted into law.

ALEC is a conservative organisation that pushes legislation that favours big business and rollbacks environmental regulations. ALEC says that its membership exceeds 2,400 state legislators from both political parties, which is over 30 percent of all state lawmakers in America.

In 2002, two environmental groups, Defender of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council, described ALEC as "corrosive, secretive and highly influential" and a "tax-exempt screen for major U.S. corporations and trade associations that use it to influence legislative activities at the state level."
 

Once again, the messenger is really the guilty one. Left-wingers like Nancy Remsen just hate it that Vermont's total liberal failures are exposed to the world. Instead of taking corrective action, lets just smear the messenger, because they are perceived to be right-of-center. If their facts are wrong, PROVE IT! Just like Bill O'Reilly exposing Lippert, Cashman, and company for enabling child predators by being so lax in sentencing or establishing a Jessica's Law. Let's just sit smugly in liberal Vermont, clucking and blubbering about how wonderfully liberal we are, and if only the rest of the country were as smart as us!
 

"This is not about Republican versus Democrat,"

Doesn't this just throw up red flags..
 

I verified that the JFO facts are correct.
 

"Defenders of Wildlife" and "The Natural Resources Defense Council"? And anonymous considers ALEC biased?
 

http://www.alecwatch.org/


ALEC has over three hundred corporate sponsors. Some corporations and trade groups that have supported ALEC include: American Nuclear Energy Council, American Petroleum Institute, Coors Brewing Company, Texaco, Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, Phillip Morris, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, VISA, Exxon Mobil, the National Rifle Association, Amway, and others. Groups critical of ALEC claim that the organization is controlled by the entities that fund it, subsequently promoting donors' agendas and goals, along with attempting to advance legislation which favors their interests
 

Their agenda is to ruin the environment, bankrupt our public schools, stifle middle class wage growth and fill their own coffers.

They aren't Jeffersonian, they are Machiavellian.
 

"Close scrutiny reveals that ALEC is little more than a screen for hundreds of big corporations and trade associations to advance their legislative agendas in state capitals from coast to coast."

Oh. So that's why Douglas is so juiced about this group's findings. It's all calculated to advance the GOP--and Jimmy's-- agenda.
 

Funny how ALEC ranks states with lower minimum wages as better.
 

Sorry. Breaking the thread here, but has anyone been over to Freyne's blog lately? It's like he's become a blogger for the weather channel. Sad.
 

Freyne land? I thought it was JPC land?
 

ALEC's top ten are all red states and the entire northeast is referred to as a "black hole." Definitely a-polical.
 

Sorry. Should read "a-political."
 

"Their agenda is to ruin the environment, bankrupt our public schools, stifle middle class wage growth and fill their own coffers. "

Please support that claim with some fact or tell us where you went to drama school.
 

All you have to do is look at the legislative recommendations they have put forth. This includes weakening of environmental regulations, allowing use of uncertified teachers, elimination of the ability for states to set minimum wage, and reducing corporate liability.

It's not drama, its all there in black and white.
 

Anonymous said...

Their agenda is to ruin the environment, bankrupt our public schools, stifle middle class wage growth and fill their own coffers.

"Please support that claim with some fact or tell us where you went to drama school."

Hey, you cited the slop, shmendrik. You substantiate it.

Just which part of that is givin' you trouble, little fella?

Which reminds me, I'm still waiting on the results of your evidence hunt demonstrating that all ANWR oil will be exclusively for US Consumption, that all current Alaskan Oil is exclusively for Domestic Consumption and that Exxon has paid their fines and costs associated with the 3/24/89 Exxon Valdez oil spill clean up efforts.

Dredge that slop up and demonstrate some credibility on the part of ALEC and we'll talk.

That slime and the nitwits that support them makes the Sopranos look like Doctors Without Borders.
 

"This is not about Republican versus Democrat,"

No, it's about fiction versus fact.
 

"Stifle middle class wage growth?" We must be in Alice's "Wonderland" when some nitwit thinks encouraging a business-friendly atmosphere (creating more jobs) will "stifle" job growth of any kind! An explanation, please?
 

Everybody knows that Exxon never funds political organizations.

The oil companies always go to bat for the middle class and never take the side of the rights of the corporation ... always sacrificing their profits for the good of the middle class.

That's just obvious.
 

Okay, forget about ALEC, and the Tax Foundation, and Forbes, and Money Magazine, and whoever else.

Let's stick to Vermont and our own simple balance sheet. Without expanding our economic base, can we continue to afford the government we have and/or want?

If yes, please explain how. If no, how should do we start buildilng the tax base and/or where should we start cutting goverment?
 

Okay, forget about ALEC, and the Tax Foundation, and Forbes, and Money Magazine, and whoever else.

Let's stick to Vermont and our own simple balance sheet. Without expanding our economic base, can we continue to afford the government we have and/or want?

If yes, please explain how. If no, how should do we start buildilng the tax base and/or where should we start cutting goverment?
 

Get rid of the executive branch!
 

Anon 2:21PM,

You are exactly what is wrong with fixing the issues in VT.

2:18PM asks for a solution to be put on the table. You serve up a childish answer. No wonder things don't get done. You offer no substance only cheap shots.
 

Wasn't a cheap shot. I'm serious.
 

I'm all for a tax increase in which funds are exclusively used for creation of a technology center for software, hardware, and green energy companies. The tax increase could be 1% on sales, income based, gas, whatever...
 

So here's what I am interested in. What are the demographics of the posters?

Of all the people that have posted an opinion here, who works in the private sector running a business, who works for a private sector business in a non-management role and who works in the public sector.

fyi...I run a private sector business.
 

doing what? selling cupcakes?
 

The trouble with liberals is that they will do anything to stifle "big business" even if it hurts middle and lower class workers. Were any of you ever hired by a poor person? Many years ago, Teddy Kennedy decided to punish the wealthy by legislating a huge tax on yachts! Well, all of a sudden, the rich stopped buying yachts, and several yacht builders went out of business, and guess who lost their jobs!(The tax soon was dropped) If liberals would just forget about their obsession with dragging down succesful people (like Rich Tarrent last year)then Vermont would be a whole lot better off. John Kennedy (who would be thrown out of the dimocrat party today) said "a rising tide lifts all boats". How appropriate today.
 

""a rising tide lifts all boats". How appropriate today."

"The substantive aspect of the statement is that economic growth which raises the GDP of the entire economy will also raise the incomes of all of the individuals within the economy. There is, of course, criticism of this statement, as there many examples in economic history in which an increase in GDP per capita did not raise the incomes of large groups of individuals in the society"
 

The trouble with Bubba is s/he can't even spell Tarrant corectly. The few, the proud, the informed electorate.
 

"I'm all for a tax increase in which funds are exclusively used for creation of a technology center for software, hardware, and green energy companies. The tax increase could be 1% on sales, income based, gas, whatever..."

I appreciate the honest answer, but a technology center would be a new government expenditure -- the new tax you propose would do nothing to help with roads and bridges, the funding gap in Catamount Health, the proposed expanded Efficiency Vermont, etc. and so on.

First, before we do anything new, can we pay for what we currently have/want?

And, is Peter Shumlin correct when he said there is no more tax capacity left in Vermont? This would make new taxes for anything, good ideas or bad, not an option.

So, do we currently have the capacity to pay for our existing government?
 

why would we take the snake-oil salesmen at ALEC seriously?

How is what they say even news?? It's just garbage.
 

"why would we take the snake-oil salesmen at ALEC seriously?"

Please tell us when you first learned of ALEC and how long you have had this opinion of them. You make it sound like you have a longstanding relationship and opinion of them.
 

Once more...

Okay, forget about ALEC, and the Tax Foundation, and Forbes, and Money Magazine, and whoever else.

Let's stick to Vermont and our own simple balance sheet. Without expanding our economic base, can we continue to afford the government we have and/or want?

If yes, please explain how. If no, how should do we start buildilng a bigger tax base and/or where should we start cutting goverment?
 

As the Titanic slowly sinks, the dim/progs carefully rearrange the deck chairs.
 

Bubba, you crack me up :-)
 

Anonymous said...

"fyi...I run a private sector business."

So, how's that paper route workin' out for ya, little fella. Ya gonna earn enough to get a new bike and a play station?

And for your information I'm heir to the Throne of England.

Nice try, nitwit. No sale.

I don't believe you, little fella and you're gonna have to come up with something a bit more credible than wing-nut websites and askin' me to take your word for it.

Prove it.

That's what I thought.

Your word is worth less than a Nigerian Banker tellin' me I just one the Nigerian Lottery and I can collect just as soon as I send him my SS, CC and PIN #s.

Once again, little fella, the only thing you've managed to prove in the month that I've been here is that you're just another clueless, gutless, spineless anonymous poster on a blog-site message board who doesn't know his ass from his elbow about a damned thing we discuss here.

Always a pleasure.
 

So... does anyone care to take a shot at a specific critique of material from the report?
 

So ... does anyone care to take a shot at a specific critique of a recent KKK report that calls Vermont a hostile place for lovers of white heritage?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Everyone else is wrong, about everything. I'm right, because I say so. I will provide no evidence of anything I say. Just shut up. I win. You die.

Love, jw.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

After watching this sideshow for some time, one thing is clear. As long as jw is the voice of the liberal element in VT, the Repubs will have no problem holding their control over the state.

jw offers no insight or value to any conversation. He merely spews garbage and incoherent cliches the rest of the board apparently must tolerate.

Way to honor the clean it up request jw.
 

There an interesting quote by an independent policy analyst about the ALEC report in today's BFP. I believe he characterized the report as "garbage" and asked "Where is the evidence... that it is right?" I believe he may have stolen a line from the jwcoop playbook. Very nicely done.

Also, the authors of the index were named. Apparently the index wasn't prepared by ALEC. It was done by Economists Arthur Laffer -- known for the "Laffer Curve," which states there is a point where any increase in taxes actually reduces tax revenue -- and Stephen Moore, a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board. Both of these guys seem credible and qualified with no apparent axe to grind with little VT. Interesting how they came to the same conclusion as many others. For those of you who choose not to read it Art Woolf actually made the most thoughtful comments about the story.

So back to a question asked earlier and ignored. Forget all the reports, how should Vermont deal with its looming fiscal issues? How do you generate the revenues needed when even Shumlin says we are tapped out? How do you expand the revenue base? How do you prioritize and reduce expenses?
 

The report is a list of measures where states are ranked and then the measures are apparently averaged with equal weights.

So for example, one measure is the size of the minimum wage. The smaller, the better. This measure is given equal weight against a variety of tax rates, such as the cap, corporate, etc. How does this make sense?

Also, the report actually is two rankings. VT was ranked as 50 in terms of the ten measures, but was ranked as 17 on the three economic health measures. Interestingly, one of the three measures for economic health was migration of people and the report uses this measure as an indicator of business movement between states.

So here you have a state ranked 50 in terms of equally weighted arbitrary measures that are supposed to provide insight into business climate and at the same time, the report ranks the state as 17 in terms of economic health.
 

Persuasive as always, Mr. Coop.
 

We should eliminate the minimum wage. Bring back slavery. It's more business friendly.
 

Anonymous said...

"There an interesting quote by an independent policy analyst about the ALEC report in today's BFP. I believe he characterized the report as "garbage" and asked "Where is the evidence... that it is right?" I believe he may have stolen a line from the jwcoop playbook. Very nicely done."

In other words, he's not buyin' your thoroughly-discredited, utterly-psychotic gop-slop either.

Imagine that.

You poor, poor, pitiful gop bastards.

So, where is the evidence?

As always, if you know where the evidence is, feel free to point it out, little fella.

"Also, the authors of the index were named. Apparently the index wasn't prepared by ALEC. It was done by Economists Arthur Laffer -- known for the "Laffer Curve," which states there is a point where any increase in taxes actually reduces tax revenue --

Gee, ya mean they couldn't complete their own index so they brought in some other utterly-psychotic, shrub-shillin' whack-jobs to do it for them, eh?

Ya wanna hurry up and get to the part where I'm supposed to give a damn, little fella.

And that proves,....what?

The only thing you've proved here is that they brought in a couple of other loons to do their index for them.

SFW? That fact was never in dispute.

They don't call it the "Laffer" Curve for nothing.

Spare me the rising tide lifts all boats, BS. Little fella. It proved itself bogus 25 years ago.

The only thing it did was run up huge Federal Deficits and the National Debt.

"Stephen Moore, a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board. Both of these guys seem credible and qualified with no apparent axe to grind with little VT. Interesting how they came to the same conclusion as many others."

Nice try, nitwit. You're gonna have to do better than "Both of these guys seem credible and qualified with no apparent axe to grind with little VT.", little fella.

I don't give a damn how the likes o'Stephen Moore "seem" to you.

That ain't evidence and your anonymous word is worthless.

Stephen Moore is illegitimate trash on his best day. He's not having his best day.

He was a whack-job when he headed the Club for Cancerous Growth and running campaigns against incumbent Gop Senators like Arlen Specter of PA because they were too liberal in his utterly psychotic view and he's a whack-job now.

If Moore had any credibility whatsoever, he wouldn't be on the WSJ-Editorial Page. They never would have asked him in the first place. Those clowns are utterly psychotic shrub-shills who still like Cheney, so Moore will fit in just fine in their fact-free digs.

"For those of you who choose not to read it Art Woolf actually made the most thoughtful comments about the story."

In other words, he told ya what ya wanted to hear.

Nice try. No sale.

"So back to a question asked earlier and ignored. Forget all the reports, how should Vermont deal with its looming fiscal issues? How do you generate the revenues needed when even Shumlin says we are tapped out? How do you expand the revenue base? How do you prioritize and reduce expenses?"

Ya mean besides making legitimate evidence and the facts the basis for any plan, little fella?

Gee. Tough break, kiddo. Any plan focusing on legitimate evidence and the facts ain't leavin' ya much to work with.

Always a pleasure .
 

BFP STAFF: It seems some parties are not heeding your warning to tone it down on the comments. What is the next step? You have 3 or 4 wingnuts who have ruined this site, and I hate to see the Buzz go the way of almost every (well, make that EVERY) VT political blog the last few years . . . that is, out of business!

A suggestion: only allow folks to comment ONCE on each article. That would stop this back and forth b/w these folks.

And Mr. Coop, please don't comment on this post. Go outside and shovel or something.
 

Funny how its ok for bubba to post whatever, but then somebody comes along to counter and balance out the bubba nonsense and you scream foul.
 

jwcoop11 said...

"BFP STAFF: It seems some parties are not heeding your warning to tone it down on the comments. What is the next step? You have 3 or 4 wingnuts who have ruined this site, and I hate to see the Buzz go the way of almost every (well, make that EVERY) VT political blog the last few years . . . that is, out of business!"

So, jwcoop11, eh? Gee, who coulda seen that comin'? Aren't you the clever lad? And it only took ya a month to come up with it, too. The folks back home must be so proud.

Usually, even the ignorant, ill-informed wing-nut nonsense likes o'you can figure that one in out in a few hours.

That said, in other words, you loons don't like it when I call you on your BS, shred your bogus arguments, trash your flimsy evidence and smack ya back.

Gee, that's a shame.

"A suggestion: only allow folks to comment ONCE on each article. That would stop this back and forth b/w these folks."

Well, that would be a good idea if we had more than a handful of articles and topics per week to comment on but we don't so it's not.

Does anybody honestly see that situation changing for the better over the Holidays?

Me neither.

"And Mr. Coop, please don't comment on this post. Go outside and shovel or something."

Well, Mr Coop, thanks anyway. I'll pass. You've shoveled enough slop in this post of yours for one day.

Always a pleasure.
 

ELIMINATE the minimum wage!!

Bring back SLAVERY !!!!

It's business FRIENDLY !!!!!!
 

"Youre a complete ass and I hope you get banned from this blog."

I would second that. Differing points of view are fine. Beligerence and trash talking is not.
 

Coop rules! The only reason you GOP neandrethals want him banned is because he kicks your butts every single time.
 

"No, jwcoop. Calling people names and saying "prove it, nitwit" isn't "shredding arguments.""

I agree. Unfortunately JW is a bit of a microcosm for what is wrong in politics today, on this blog, in Vermont overall and at the national level.

Certainly in VT there used to be an attitude of acknowledging a problem existed, sitting down with all parties and finding a workable solution. That has been replaced with this divisive attitude that the only thing that counts is blocking the efforts of the other side and assigning blame on them for failure. The partisanism that exists today is juvenile, destructive and the major contributor to the legislative paralysis that we contend with today.

my two cents
 

"Coop rules! The only reason you GOP neandrethals want him banned is because he kicks your butts every single time."

Thank you Mrs. Coop
 

She say's Hi! from on High.
 

Anonymous said...
"That said, in other words, you loons don't like it when I call you on your BS, shred your bogus arguments, trash your flimsy evidence and smack ya back."

No, jwcoop. Calling people names and saying "prove it, nitwit" isn't "shredding arguments."

No, but pointing out the fact that your assertions are bogus and you have no legitimate supporting evidence to provide any foundation for your gop-slop nonsense and watching them crumble and collapse on their own has the same practical effect.

Get over yourself, chump.

Occasionally citing bogus wingnut web sites funded by big tobacco ain't furnishing evidence.

Christ. Usually you want me to just take your word for it.

No sale. Your word is as worthless as the nitwit in chief's and his ignorant, ill-informed, ill-advised and downright corrupt policies and practices.

Leahy is gonna roast his sorry butt. It's not going as fast as I'd like but he's gonna do it.

"Youre a complete ass and I hope you get banned from this blog."

Always with the sweet talk, little fella.

You'd better. It's your only shot at winning an argument, little fella.

You're like the old joke about the football team that was so bad the opposition walked off the field and it only took ya 10 plays to score from inside the other team's 20 yard line.

The only difference is that you'd take 12 plays and settle for a field goal.

Always a pleasure.

3:48 PM, December 19, 2007
 

Anonymous said...
"Youre a complete ass and I hope you get banned from this blog."

"I would second that. Differing points of view are fine. Beligerence and trash talking is not."

Nice try. It's not trash talk. It's talkin' to trash.

Big difference.

Gee, one of your little anonymous imaginary friends is with ya, little fella. Ya made the sale. That's swell. What are the odds.

Present a legitimate point of view with a factual foundation and some legitimate supporting evidence and I'll take you seriously.

Which, let's face it, if you're a gop, doesn't leave ya much to work with, so, you're basically toast.

Bummer.

You've had 5 weeks to do it and all you've shown me is a slop like this and it ain't even worth 2 cents American let alone Canadian thanks to your boy squatting in the WH.

Always a pleasure.
 

Get a job.
 

Who would employ an antisocial psychopath like jw? He's Columbine material.
 

What's with all of these memorized sports metaphors? Is jw now trying to sound like a jock "he-man" ?
 

Anonymous said...

"Who would employ an antisocial psychopath like jw? He's Columbine material."

And once again, you have as much evidence of that as any other nitwit-nonsense assertion you've claimed.

Always a pleasure.
 

Anonymous said...

"No, all of your sick postings are evidence that you are an antisocial psychopath."

In other words, you still don't have any evidence.

I'm shocked.

You're entitled to your ignorant, ill-informed opinions, little fella. It's not like you've got anything else to offer.

Always a pleasure.
 

It's the Christmas season and one of forgiveness. Let's give old Coop a second chance. Let's see if he can give us a civil, insult free answer to a couple of simple questions:

Is Peter Shumlin correct when he says there is no more tax capacity left in Vermont. We're tapped out?

Without expanding the tax base, creating jobs that provide a net positive to the treasury (ie, government and government subsidized jobs don't count as they just add to the problem) can Vermont afford its current financial obligations?

As large businesses go the way of the dinosaurs, what will a Vermont government dependent entirely on small businesses (and their small tax payments) look like ten years from now?
 

Anonymous said...

"It's the Christmas season and one of forgiveness. Let's give old Coop a second chance. Let's see if he can give us a civil, insult free answer to a couple of simple questions:

"Is Peter Shumlin correct when he says there is no more tax capacity left in Vermont. We're tapped out?"

What's left of the middle class is.

"Without expanding the tax base, creating jobs that provide a net positive to the treasury (ie, government and government subsidized jobs don't count as they just add to the problem) can Vermont afford its current financial obligations?"

Not as long as this schmuck is in the WH and NCLB is in effect without being fully-funded by the Feds and not as long as this schmuck is Governor of the State of Vermont and letting him get away with it.

"As large businesses go the way of the dinosaurs, what will a Vermont government dependent entirely on small businesses (and their small tax payments) look like ten years from now?"

Is this "large businesses going the way of the dinosaurs" trend you cite unique to the State of Vermont?

That's what I thought.

Is Vermont the only State losing businesses through corporate downsizing and experiencing an economic downturn?

That's what I thought.

How are the other 49 States handling it, little fella?

I don't know. I also know that you don't know, either.

Nice try, jolly ol' st nitwit.
 

Anonymous said...

"No, all of your sick postings are evidence that you are an antisocial psychopath."

In other words, you still don't know your sorry butt from your elbow and you still have no credible evidence to bolster your bogus assertions, eh, little fella?

If nothin' else, you certainly are consistent.

Always a pleasure.
 

Test failed. jwcoop could not respond to a posting without hurling insults at the poster and others.

Calling Gov. Douglas a "schmuck."

Calling the poster "little fella" and "jolly ol' st. nitwit."

Terri, please ban this guy.
 

Anonymous nitwit, please get a clue and a legitimate argument.
 

See?
 

Seventy three comments and I'm still not sure what I'm supposed to think about Terri's original question about whether Vermont deserves its ranking.

I guess the simple answer is yes, based on the criteria used. Then the follow up question is, "Should we care?"

For some, like jwcoop, Doug Hoffer, and many on the political left, the answer is no, it's a right-wing, conservative pro-business group and therefore their conclusions are flawed and no one should pay attention to them.

I would offer up that we should care because ALEC's rankings confirm those of other mainstream groups such as Forbes, Kiplinger, etc. Whether you think these groups/publications are pro-business or conservative really doesn't matter, because they are listened to by decision makers outside of Vermont.

I have no doubt that Speaker Symington can find plenty of businesses in the ranks of Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility (NRG Systems, The Intervale Foundation, etc.) who will testify that taxes, regulation, workers comp costs, etc. aren't a problem for them.

But while there are companies that thrive in the present climate, others find it onerous and we can't ignore their concerns. And I think that outside the state (and even within) decisions about creating jobs and making investments are influenced by that business climate and the reports of groups like Forbes, Kiplinger, ALEC, etc. on the climate.

Talking about our success stories is fine. But reforming workers compensation; holding the line on taxes; and making the regulatory process more predictable and less costly would make more success stories possible. And these steps don't have to be at the expense of workers' rights, state revenues/services, and the environment. IMHO.
 

Thanks JWC for giving it a shot. You almost made it all the way through on the name calling. That's something.

"What's left of the middle class is [tapped out]."

How can this be when the JFO study you refer to often just determined Vermont has the most progressive tax system in the country? And why, under the most liberal/progressive tax structure in the country is there so little of the middle class left? (Something to ponder!)

You admit that with our current tax base as it is Vermont cannot afford its current financial obligations. That's good. The first step is admitting that you have a problem. But NCLB is the sole reason for this!? Getting rid of NCLB would give us the cash to cover our roads and bridges, pension deficits, Catamount Health and all the rest? Please prove this, and show your math.

"Is Vermont the only State losing businesses through corporate downsizing and experiencing an economic downturn?"

Doesn't matter. I'm asking about our bottom line here in Vermont. If high tax paying businesses and their high income employees are leaving, and the plan is to replace them with small start-up businesses that don't pay taxes because they're losing money (or worse require goverment subsidies to stay afloat), and don't pay as high incomes to their employees, what furture means will exist to pay for the most expensive public education system in the country, the most expensive public health care benefits, etc?
 

Terri, please look at the uncivil posting of jwcoop at 9:25 and ask yourself if he has "cleaned it up?"
 

Anonymous said...

"Thanks JWC for giving it a shot. You almost made it all the way through on the name calling. That's something."

Why thanks. Yes, it is. Certainly something more than you've provided.


"What's left of the middle class is [tapped out]."

"How can this be when the JFO study you refer to often just determined Vermont has the most progressive tax system in the country? And why, under the most liberal/progressive tax structure in the country is there so little of the middle class left? (Something to ponder!)"

What evidence is there that I based it on the JFO study I allegedly refer to often?

That's what I thought.

You mistakenly assume a lot of things based on facts not in evidence, little fella.

Like dropping your hands and leading with your chin in boxing, that could come back to hurt you.

Just something for you to ponder.

"You admit that with our current tax base as it is Vermont cannot afford its current financial obligations. That's good. The first step is admitting that you have a problem."

Nice to finally hear you say that, little fella. You've got a long, hard slog ahead of ya, but if ya take it one step at a time and one day at a time, ya might just make it.

I'm pullin' for ya.

Once again, sport, feel free to point out where I said there was no problem. I merely questioned your facts, evidence, conclusions and proposed solutions.

Big Difference.

"But NCLB is the sole reason for this!? Getting rid of NCLB would give us the cash to cover our roads and bridges, pension deficits, Catamount Health and all the rest? Please prove this, and show your math."

Feel free to point out where I said NCLB was the sole reason for the State of Vermont's Budget Shortfall?

That's what I thought.

I merely cited it as an example of one of many factors contributing to what ails us.

Is it your assertion that NCLB and Bush's failure to fully fund it is not contributing to the sharp rise in the cost of education?

Feel free to demonstrate that and show me your work. That will be the easiest, simplest way for me to correct your problem and show you where you've gone off track.

You're welcome.

"Is Vermont the only State losing businesses through corporate downsizing and experiencing an economic downturn?"

"Doesn't matter. I'm asking about our bottom line here in Vermont. If high tax paying businesses and their high income employees are leaving, and the plan is to replace them with small start-up businesses that don't pay taxes because they're losing money (or worse require goverment subsidies to stay afloat), and don't pay as high incomes to their employees, what furture means will exist to pay for the most expensive public education system in the country, the most expensive public health care benefits, etc?"

Once again, little fella, you continue to assume facts not yet in evidence and act as though your questions emanate from a foundation in fact when you've established no such foundation and demonstrated no such cause and effect linkage between Vermont's alleged Anti-Business environment and the policies you don't like.

You can't simply wave away inconvenient facts and truths when businesses in other States that don't have the very Vermont laws, rules and regs that you allege to be anti-business are pulling up stakes or downsizing as well.

Therefore, given those facts, not only have you failed to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship between the Vermont laws, rules, regs and policies you don't like. If anything, the downsizings and plant closings in other States without Vermont's alleged "anti-business" environment would indicate just the opposite.

That leaves you in the somewhat indefensible and awkward position of defending an unproven argument that if Vermont gives away the store and voluntarily trashes its own environment which would certainly have a negative effect on Vermont's existing businesses connected and/or dependent on travel and tourism and effectively turn Vermont into New Jersey with longer Winters in the hopes that there's a possibility some businesses will choose to stay or relocate here.

Nice try.

No sale.

You're gonna have to come up with something a bit more substantial than throwing slop at the wall in the vague hopes something will stick to convince me and the other members of the Fact-Based Community residing in Vermont to buy that song and dance.

Always a pleasure.
 

JW -- The effort you put into maintaining your delusional state is truly astounding.
 

"What evidence is there that I based it on the JFO study I allegedly refer to often?"

Okay, what did you base your statement that the middle class taxpayer in Vermont is tapped out on? You didn't say.

"I merely cited [NCLB] it as an example of one of many factors contributing to what ails us.

Actually, here's what you said:

"Not as long as this schmuck is in the WH and NCLB is in effect without being fully-funded by the Feds and not as long as this schmuck is Governor of the State of Vermont and letting him get away with it."

NCLB was the only policy you mentioned as a factor. Actually federal funding for education has increased substantially under NCLB. If we repealed NCLB, do you think the NEA would give that extra money back for our roads and bridges?

"not only have you failed to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship between the Vermont laws, rules, regs and policies you don't like. If anything, the downsizings and plant closings in other States without Vermont's alleged "anti-business" environment would indicate just the opposite."

Point is, and don't try to change the subject, if the tax base shrinks (for whatever reasons, local, national or global) the government that is supported by that tax base must shrink also.

If Vermonters don't want a lot of big companies or rich individuals living here, fine. Just get accustomed to a level of government services that can be funded soley from the taxes generated by roadside, organic vegetable stands.
 

"That leaves you in the somewhat indefensible and awkward position of defending an unproven argument that if Vermont gives away the store and voluntarily trashes its own environment which would certainly have a negative effect on Vermont's existing businesses connected and/or dependent on travel and tourism and effectively turn Vermont into New Jersey with longer Winters in the hopes that there's a possibility some businesses will choose to stay or relocate here."

jw, you constantly complain that people allegedly say things w/o evidence.

Please point out where the original poster said that the only solution to Vermont's economic problems is to "give away the store and voluntarily trash its own environment."

He never said this. You're making unfounded assumptions and creating a straw man argument.

Vermont can certainly become more attractive to businesses without "trashing the environment."

You assume a false dichotomy and put words in other people's mouths to suit your preconceived rhetorical needs.

Sorta like Rush Limbaugh.

Dismissed.
 

Anonymous said...

""That leaves you in the somewhat indefensible and awkward position of defending an unproven argument that if Vermont gives away the store and voluntarily trashes its own environment which would certainly have a negative effect on Vermont's existing businesses connected and/or dependent on travel and tourism and effectively turn Vermont into New Jersey with longer Winters in the hopes that there's a possibility some businesses will choose to stay or relocate here." "

"jw, you constantly complain that people allegedly say things w/o evidence."

Well, given the fact that doing what you allege would be kinda like lookin' out the window and "alleging" the ground is snow covered as you squeak, I suppose some simpleton could get that impression.

Clearly, we need to invest more in Special Education so Vermont eradicate such cases once and for all.

"Please point out where the original poster said that the only solution to Vermont's economic problems is to "give away the store and voluntarily trash its own environment."

Nice try.

Please point to where he said that ACT 250 and environmental rules and regs needed to be strengthened and fewer tax breaks should be given for businesses to relocate here or that said tax breaks given would have be returned if said company pulled up stakes to relocate elsewhere putting them in breech of contract?

That's what I thought.

"He never said this. You're making unfounded assumptions and creating a straw man argument."

No, I leave that nonsense to you.

Nice try. Al qaeda's codes should be so easy to crack, schmuck.

"Vermont can certainly become more attractive to businesses without "trashing the environment."

Really? How so?

Feel free to elaborate on that statement and bolster it with something remotely resembling legitimate evidence for a change.

"You assume a false dichotomy and put words in other people's mouths to suit your preconceived rhetorical needs."

No, once again, that would be you. I just bust your sorry butt when ya do it.

"Sorta like Rush Limbaugh."

Well, given that I: actually both attended and graduated from College, didn't dodge the draft, have never been and am not now strung out on hillbilly heroin, busted for doctor shopping like the oxy-moron to whom you refer, ridicule people afflicted with chronic progressive diseases on my radio show and then turn around and deny it despite evidence to the contrary preserved on both audio and video tape, and know what day it is, which end is up and can distinguish my considerably smaller ass from my elbow on the issues of the day which disqualifies me from being a gop or shrub-shill in any way shape or form, I fail to see the resemblance.

Always a pleasure.

Dismissed.
 

You said that the OP wanted to trash the Vermont environment. I asked where he said that and you respond that he DIDN'T say that he wanted to strengthen ACT 250???

So, to you, NOT saying that he wants to strenthen ACT 250 is the same as saying he wants to "trash the environment"?

That's not logic.

Busted.
 

Don't try to argue with JW Coop. He shows all the hallmarks of being Doug Hoffer, right down to his position on economic development incentives.

In other words (or rather his), unless you publicly state that "fewer tax breaks should be given for businesses to relocate here or that said tax breaks given would have be returned if said company pulled up stakes to relocate elsewhere putting them in breech of contract?" you're for "giving away the store."

You couldn't win an argument with Hoffer, and I predict you won't win one with JWCOOP either.
 

Anonymous said...

You said that the OP wanted to trash the Vermont environment. I asked where he said that and you respond that he DIDN'T say that he wanted to strengthen ACT 250???

"So, to you, NOT saying that he wants to strenthen ACT 250 is the same as saying he wants to "trash the environment?"

Feel free to point out where I said that, little fella.

"That's not logic."

No, it's evidence that the likes of you, yourselves and bubbles don't have any evidence.

"Busted."

Bummer.

Maybe ya can get your buddy Rush to go your bail, little fella.

Always a pleasure.
 

""So, to you, NOT saying that he wants to strenthen ACT 250 is the same as saying he wants to "trash the environment?"

Feel free to point out where I said that, little fella. "

That's ERXACTLY what you said. I asked you the basis for your accusation that the OP wanted to "trash the environment," and you responded that he obviously DIDN'T want to strengthen ACT 250. So you equated the OP's not wanting to "strengthen" ACT 250 (an assumption you made, by the way) with his wanting to "trash the environment."

Nice logic there, little fella.

Busted.
 

Like I said:

Not only have you failed to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship between the Vermont laws, rules, regs and policies you don't like. If anything, the downsizings and plant closings in other States without Vermont's alleged "anti-business" environment would indicate just the opposite.

"Point is, and don't try to change the subject, if the tax base shrinks (for whatever reasons, local, national or global) the government that is supported by that tax base must shrink also."

In other words, ya got bupkis.

The point is that you don't have one.

That is the only point before us.

"If Vermonters don't want a lot of big companies or rich individuals living here, fine. Just get accustomed to a level of government services that can be funded soley from the taxes generated by roadside, organic vegetable stands."

Ah, so now there's no more rich people living in the State of Vermont, eh?

Good luck makin' that case, little fella.

First ya offer bogus conclusions based on a bogus study conducted by a bogus wing-nut entity with a long decided non-bogus unsavory history of ties to the rnc and the usual assortment of wing-nut whack-job organizations, foundations and individuals funded by the tobacco industry, then ya whine when I point it out.

In the spirit of the season, little fella, I'm gonna try to explain something to ya one last time in the vain hopes that you'll be able to comprehend it.

Ya see, little fella, it's like this. In this Country, when you make an assertion, you have to establish that what you allege is true, relevant and rooted in fact.

One does that by providing legitimate evidence to buttress, support and provide a strong factual foundation for that assertion.

You, yourselves and bubbles have consistently proven yourselves to be unwilling and/or unable to meet that challenge.

Let me know if I'm goin' too fast for ya now, little fella.

If I point that out, it is not my obligation to prove anything but the fact that you haven't and can't prove anything to legitimize or substantiate your consistently bogus allegations and assertions.

Invariably, you do that for me.

At this juncture, I just point it out, laugh, crack wise, laugh some more and go on my merry way content in the quality and consistency of your cluelessness.

The hours are flexible and convenient. I can come and go as I please and there's no heavy lifting.

From my perspective, what's not to like?

I'd hoped that you could occasionally provide something even remotely resembling a worthy adversary that could make me crack the occasional sweat, but alas, that has not been the case and that situation gives no indication and offers no hope for a change for the better.

If anything, you're having a tough enough time of it just maintaining the status quo, but that's just a minor inconvenience.

That said, I ask you again, from my perspective, what's not to like?

Always a pleasure.
 

""Point is, and don't try to change the subject, if the tax base shrinks (for whatever reasons, local, national or global) the government that is supported by that tax base must shrink also."

In other words, ya got bupkis."

He changed the subject.

"First ya offer bogus conclusions based on a bogus study conducted by a bogus wing-nut entity with a long decided non-bogus unsavory history of ties to the rnc and the usual assortment of wing-nut whack-job organizations, foundations and individuals funded by the tobacco industry, then ya whine when I point it out."

The only study jw will consider not bogus is whatever study supports whatever he happens to believe in (and who know what this is).

"Ya see, little fella, it's like this. In this Country, when you make an assertion, you have to establish that what you allege is true, relevant and rooted in fact.

One does that by providing legitimate evidence to buttress, support and provide a strong factual foundation for that assertion."

In addition to thinking he's a lawyer, jw in effect says, "no," to whatever anybody else says, but doesn't want to offer any evidence to support his negation. You just have to accept his negation as the ultimate truth.

What a buffoon.
 

Feel free to point out where I said that, little fella. "

"That's ERXACTLY what you said. I asked you the basis for your accusation that the OP wanted to "trash the environment," and you responded that he obviously DIDN'T want to strengthen ACT 250. So you equated the OP's not wanting to "strengthen" ACT 250 (an assumption you made, by the way) with his wanting to "trash the environment."

No, as is your coalition of the clueless custom, you foolishly assumed that.

First of all, I make it a policy to never "ERXACTLY" say or do anything, little fella.

However, if you feel the need for a make-work trip down memory lane, I'll give ya an early Christmas present or two.

For openers, there's this: bubba said...

"Once again, the messenger is really the guilty one. Left-wingers like Nancy Remsen just hate it that Vermont's total liberal failures are exposed to the world. Instead of taking corrective action, lets just smear the messenger, because they are perceived to be right-of-center. If their facts are wrong, PROVE IT! Just like Bill O'Reilly exposing Lippert, Cashman, and company for enabling child predators by being so lax in sentencing or establishing a Jessica's Law. Let's just sit smugly in liberal Vermont, clucking and blubbering about how wonderfully liberal we are, and if only the rest of the country were as smart as us!

12:20 PM, December 18, 2007"

Really? Precisely where did bubbles establish any or all of that as fact, little fella?

Talk about assuming facts not in evidence.

Bubbles, with his customary no means of factual support - appears to be basing his latest fact-free flight of fancy which you are seeking to defend and argue on his behalf on Nancy Remsen's original posting.

Again, where has he proven anything but the indisputable fact that everything he says is nothing more that his ignorant, ill-informed, knuckle-draggin' nitwit opinion?

"Looking for a political ranking you can wrangle about? Check here at the Web site of the American Legislatigve Exchange Council for the report "Rich States, Poor States: ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index."

Vermont lost lots of points for its minimum wage, regulations and marginal tax rates -- among other findings.

The American Legislative Exchange Council, according to its Web site, was formed in 1973 as a bipartisan association for conservative state lawmakers who share a common belief in limited government, free markets, federalism and individual liberty.

One of its Vermont members -- Sen. Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland, is quoted in a press release about the report saying "Vermont has a lot of room for improvement if we are to remain competitive with the other states for job growth and retention." He calls for quick action to make Vermont more attractive to economic growth.

The question some of you will ask is whether Vermont wants to make the "progress" that ALEC advocates.


In the report's executive summary, Jonathan Williams, director of ALEC's task force on tax and fiscal policy, concludes with this statement of purpose for the report and ranking:

This is not about Republican versus Democrat, or left versus right. It is simply a choice between economic vitality and economic malaise. To become competitive in the global business environment of the 21st century, states must have free-market, pro-growth tax systems in place, rather than increasing the ever-burdensome role of government on citizens. May this publication help lawmakers act responsibly by encouraging capital formation and allowing the dreams and entrepreneurial spirit of their fellow man to flourish.

So the obvious question is whether Vermont should be ranked 50th for economic competitiveness?

-- Nancy Remsen

Knock yourself out, little fella.

The only thing proven here is that it's a bogus study conducted by a bogus rnc front group with a long history of conducting bogus studies designed to reach bogus conclusions that benefit their bogus contributors and that you don't make bubba's bogus bs arguments for him any better than he does, little fella.

Moreover, with the possible exception of you and your imaginary anonymous little friends, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone, anywhere who wasn't smarter than bubbles.

Then there's this:

"Anonymous said...

"I verified that the JFO facts are correct."

12:22 PM, December 18, 2007"

Ya did, eh? Where? When? How so?

Do ya really need me to remind ya again just how little your word is worth around here, little fella?

Then there's this little nitwit nugget

bubba said...

"The trouble with liberals is that they will do anything to stifle "big business" even if it hurts middle and lower class workers. Were any of you ever hired by a poor person? Many years ago, Teddy Kennedy decided to punish the wealthy by legislating a huge tax on yachts! Well, all of a sudden, the rich stopped buying yachts, and several yacht builders went out of business, and guess who lost their jobs!(The tax soon was dropped) If liberals would just forget about their obsession with dragging down succesful people (like Rich Tarrent last year)then Vermont would be a whole lot better off. John Kennedy (who would be thrown out of the dimocrat party today) said "a rising tide lifts all boats". How appropriate today."

Feel free to point out where your boy's proven anything apart from the fact that the above passage is merely his ignorant, ill-informed, knuckle-draggin', unsubstantiated nitwit-nonsense opinion.

That fact were never in dispute.

Anonymous said...

why would we take the snake-oil salesmen at ALEC seriously?

"Please tell us when you first learned of ALEC and how long you have had this opinion of them. You make it sound like you have a longstanding relationship and opinion of them."

And the relevance of that would be,.....?

If the ignorant, ill-informed lunatic-fringe likes of you never heard of the Sobibor Revolt or could distinguish one Warsaw Uprising from the other before this morning would that make it any less a legitimate, well-documented part of history, little fella?

No, he merely lays out the evidence. ALEC's origins, funding, agenda and its actions speak for themselves. He merely points it out.

5:05 PM, December 18, 2007

Then there's this:

bubba said...

"Defenders of Wildlife" and "The Natural Resources Defense Council"? And anonymous considers ALEC biased?"

12:23 PM, December 18, 2007

As always, if you and bubbles have any evidence of illegal Antelope or Duck Contributions to said organizations or illicit ties to Big Breathable Air and Potable Water Front Groups, feel free to present it.

Knock yourself out.

Lay those lunatic fringe cards of yours on the table.

You'll understand if I don't wait up.

Moving right along:

Here, in one of your more lucid moments, you appear to sense that -once again - no one is buying your gop-slop nonsense and that maintaining your present course is futile, so you ham-handedly try to change things up with this lunacy:

Anonymous said...

"Okay, forget about ALEC, and the Tax Foundation, and Forbes, and Money Magazine, and whoever else."

"Let's stick to Vermont and our own simple balance sheet. Without expanding our economic base, can we continue to afford the government we have and/or want?"

"If yes, please explain how. If no, how should do we start buildilng the tax base and/or where should we start cutting goverment?"

2:18 PM, December 18, 2007

In other words, having thrown in what's left of your self-shredding ALEC towel, you oafishly attempt to set up a pathetic strawman argument allegedly presenting us with two bogus tough choices.

Nice try, nitwit. We're not the ones between the rock and the hard place. You, yourselves, bubbles and ALEC are with this trash of yours.

Moving right along:

After a mercifully brief if comical attempt at passing yourself as a captain of industry and entrepreneur that fooled no one, you began to continue putting your state of mind in question with the likes of this lunacy:

Anonymous said...

"After watching this sideshow for some time, one thing is clear. As long as jw is the voice of the liberal element in VT, the Repubs will have no problem holding their control over the state."

Just what about the current composition of the Legislature would lead you to conclude that "the Repubs will have no problem holding their control over the state." as you put it, little fella?

"jw offers no insight or value to any conversation."

Really? Try this one on for size:

One has to control something in the first place in order to maintain control over it.

You're welcome.

"He merely spews garbage and incoherent cliches the rest of the board apparently must tolerate."

"Way to honor the clean it up request jw."

Feel free to illustrate just how your pathetic attempts to insult me are evidence of you honoring the request to clean up the board while simultaneously providing evidence of my failure honor that request, little fella.

Knock yourself out.

7:20 AM, December 19, 2007

Anonymous said...

"Everyone else is wrong, about everything. I'm right, because I say so. I will provide no evidence of anything I say. Just shut up. I win. You die."

Feel free to explain or establish any or all of that farcockteh dreck, little fella.

Evidently, it's finally dawned on you that you haven't got a clue or a case prompting you to snap and decide that your best course of action is to clone your sorry, clueless anonymous butt a couple more times and devote yourselves full-time to whining and trying to get me banned for unsportsmanlike conduct for having a bit too much fun dancing on the graves you've so graciously dug for yourselves while offering up the self-serving, selectively-edited and increasingly desperate likes of this slop:

Anonymous said...
After watching this sideshow for some time, one thing is clear. As long as jw is the voice of the liberal element in VT, the Repubs will have no problem holding their control over the state.

jw offers no insight or value to any conversation. He merely spews garbage and incoherent cliches the rest of the board apparently must tolerate.

Way to honor the clean it up request jw.

7:20 AM, December 19, 2007


Anonymous said...

"There an interesting quote by an independent policy analyst about the ALEC report in today's BFP. I believe he characterized the report as "garbage" and asked "Where is the evidence... that it is right?" I believe he may have stolen a line from the jwcoop playbook. Very nicely done."

Actually, it's the way we do things in the reality-based community, but thanks all the same.

"Also, the authors of the index were named. Apparently the index wasn't prepared by ALEC. It was done by Economists Arthur Laffer -- known for the "Laffer Curve," which states there is a point where any increase in taxes actually reduces tax revenue -- and Stephen Moore, a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board. Both of these guys seem credible and qualified with no apparent axe to grind with little VT. Interesting how they came to the same conclusion as many others. For those of you who choose not to read it Art Woolf actually made the most thoughtful comments about the story."

Proving what? The only thing this proves is that ALEC wasn't up to the task of compiling their own index so they called in for some more wingnut reinforcements and these two lunatic-fringe orgs with their own sorry, sordid histories took the call.

"So back to a question asked earlier and ignored. Forget all the reports, how should Vermont deal with its looming fiscal issues? How do you generate the revenues needed when even Shumlin says we are tapped out? How do you expand the revenue base? How do you prioritize and reduce expenses?"

Nice try. No sale. Ya didn't establish anything with your first few stabs at it and ya haven't established anything with this latest pathetic attempt.

Once again, unless and until you can manage to do that, you're in no position to be asking question or dictating terms, little fella.

As long as you loons keep double faulting left and right, little fella, no one has to return your serve.

That's why this is always a pleasure.
 

Clearly insane, psychotic, and a plain old liar.
 

Looks like there's no Christmas Comprehension Miracles for you, little fella.

Anonymous said...

""Point is, and don't try to change the subject, if the tax base shrinks (for whatever reasons, local, national or global) the government that is supported by that tax base must shrink also."

In other words, ya got bupkis.

"He changed the subject."

No, that would be you.

I merely pointed out the fact that you've yet to provide any evidence to substantiate you alleged point.

Once again, until you establish a point and provide legitimate evidence to support your latest ludicrous assertion, there's no point or subject for me to change.

To date, the only point you've been able to make here is that you keep pointing to a pile of dog crap on the lawn and tell me it's evidence.

Nice try. No sale.

As long as ya keep doin' that I'm gonna keep tellin' ya that your pile of dog crap on the lawn ain't evidence.

In other words, ya got bupkis.

No point. No subject. No dice.

Let's review.

First, ya offer bogus conclusions based on a bogus study conducted by a bogus wing-nut entity with a long decided non-bogus unsavory history of ties to the rnc and the usual assortment of wing-nut whack-job organizations, foundations and individuals funded by the tobacco industry, then ya whine when I point it out.

"The only study jw will consider not bogus is whatever study supports whatever he happens to believe in (and who know what this is)."

Feel free to demonstrate where I said that, shmendrik.

All I've said is that I'm not gonna consider your latest pile of dog crap.

Big difference.

Cough up a legitimate study, little fella, and I'll give it a look.

You have yet to do so.

Moreover, you have yet to so much as demonstrate the capacity to do so.

Once again, to date, all you've shown any ability to do is to cough up pre-shredded crap and bitch and whine and moan when I tell ya it's pre-shredded crap.

It's not my job to prove your pile of crap ain't evidence.

You've already done that for me.

It's your job to prove to me it isn't.

To date, you've failed to do so.

Your latest effort is no better than the rest of your slop.

As long as you keep coughing up piles of dog crap on the lawn as evidence, I'm gonna keep telling you your pile of dog crap on the lawn ain't evidence.

Beyond that, don't whine, bitch and moan when I tell you you're pile of dog crap on the lawn is nothing more than a pile of dog crap on the lawn, little fella.

You dug your own grave. Go fall in it.

Happy Holidays.
 

Anonymous said...

"Clearly insane, psychotic, and a plain old liar."

Keep chantin' I think I can, I think I can, little fella.

It won't get ya anywhere but I find it entertaining in a what-the-hell, empty-calorie kinda way.

Dismissed.
 

Like I said, I think you're wasting your time arguing with JW/Doug.

There's no winning. Your studies and evidence are biased, his are objective and beyond challenging. ALEC is a "bogus wing nut" organization; the Center for Peace and Justice and the Livable Wage Campaign are as objective and authoritative as the Congressional Budget Office.

Just give it up.
 

Anonymous said...

"Like I said, I think you're wasting your time arguing with JW/Doug."

Ah, so now Hoffer and I are the same person, eh, little fella?

Good luck provin' that mess?

So much for Christmas off for the sorry likes of you swine.

"There's no winning. Your studies and evidence are biased, his are objective and beyond challenging."

Nice try, nitwit. You can't win an argument because you can't come up with a winning argument.


"ALEC is a "bogus wing nut"
organization;"

Now your learnin', boyo."
Couldn't have put it better myself, little fella.

"...the Center for Peace and Justice and the Livable Wage Campaign are as objective and authoritative as the Congressional Budget Office..."

Feel free to point out just where I cited any or all of those organizations, little fella.

So much for your New Years For Nitwits extravaganza.

"Just give it up."

Nitwit, heal thyself.

Happy Holidays
 

Anonymous 10:47 was exactly right.

Merry Christmas to you, too, Ebenezer.
 

That's back at ya, sport.

Hopefully, Santa will hook ya up with a legitimate argument and some supporting evidence.

Maybe not.

Either way,

Merry Christmas.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

JWCOOP10 said:

"Ah, so now Hoffer and I are the same person, eh, little fella?

Good luck provin' that mess?

So much for Christmas off for the sorry likes of you swine."

Sorry, I just couldn't help but notice the similarities of your positions, and the fact that Mr. Hoffer disappeared from this board when you appeared.

If true, you wouldn't be the first person to undergo a personality change when you assumed an alter-ego online.

But unlike you, I will concede points made. You're correct, I have no proof. And never will. Still, you didn't deny it, just challenged me to prove it.

In any event, at least I did take Christmas off, unlike you, who was apparently posting at 7:03 p.m. on Christmas Eve.
 

JWCoop10 has left a new comment on the post "Rank 'em, cowboy":

JWCOOP10 said:

"Ah, so now Hoffer and I are the same person, eh, little fella?

Good luck provin' that mess?

So much for Christmas off for the sorry likes of you swine."

"Sorry, I just couldn't help but notice the similarities of your positions, and the fact that Mr. Hoffer disappeared from this board when you appeared."

Really? You have looked at the composition of the Legislature lately, haven't you, little fella?

In other words, those positions of mine appear to be the positions of the majority of Vermonters.

Feel free to prove I'm not them while you're at it. Ya better pack a big lunch and a change of clothes, little fella.

"If true, you wouldn't be the first person to undergo a personality change when you assumed an alter-ego online."

If you say so.

"If" being the operative word here.

"But unlike you, I will concede points made."

Nice try. Let's review:

You haven't made a point in 6 weeks, little fella. I doubt ya made one before I got here and ya show no signs of makin' one in the future any more than you're doin' here now.

"You're correct, I have no proof. And never will. Still, you didn't deny it, just challenged me to prove it."

Oy, you really are one farcockteh, meshuggah putz on wheels, little fella.

Ya finally come clean, confirm what was obvious to everyone but you 6 weeks ago and fess up to the fact that you have no proof to substantiate your claim but take notice of my not denying something you've just admitted you can not now and never will be able to prove as somehow being significant of something.

Is this where I'm supposed to crack under the strain of your whithering cross examination and present you with a proverbial Perry Mason Moment, little fella, or do I just simply wait 'til I stop laughing hysterically and wipe up the diet coke that just came through my nose like a damned fire hose?

I challenge you to prove it for the same reason I challenge ya to prove most anything you say, little fella. Because you've made it abundantly clear that you can't.

You're inability to substantiate your bogus claims is as close to the proverbial sure thing as one gets in this life, little fella.

You're money in the bank.

That said, 'cause it's the Holidays and I feel sorry for your pathetic little putz of a self, I'll tell ya what I'm gonna do. You can roll provin' I'm not the rest of Vermont in there with the Hoffer thing and let it ride, little fella. You had 3 days to prove I'm not Hoffer and ya can't do it. Ya might as well make not proving I'm someone or something else your life's work and get it over with.

No, there's no need to thank me. Settle down. Don't go getting all fahklempt on me now.
It's my pleasure. It'll give ya somethin' to do and it'll keep ya out of trouble.

Face it, little fella, you continue to have problems grasping the way things work on the most fundamental of levels.

Why should I confirm or deny something you've yet to establish?

Why would I? Why would anybody?

You've yet to demonstrate the ability to distinguish your sorry butt from your elbow despite having six weeks to do it, little fella.

Lord knows you've yet to prove anything else.

That's why I've been tellin' ya for 6 weeks that until you prove to me you can throw strikes, my bat is stayin' right on my shoulder. It's not like you're hard to run on for Christ sake.

"In any event, at least I did take Christmas off, unlike you, who was apparently posting at 7:03 p.m. on Christmas Eve."

Yeah, I was really burnin' the midnight oil there, wasn't I little fella?

So flippin' what. Ya wanna hurry up and get to the part where I'm supposed to give a damn.

Take the offer, little fella. Clearly, you can't get out of your own way and you're not gonna do any better.

Sleep on it. You've got 'til noon before it expires.

Always a pleasure.
 

Hey, Anonymous 10:38, ya gotta love jw's off-the-meds response, doncha?
 

Anonymous said...

"Hey, Anonymous 10:38, ya gotta love jw's off-the-meds response, doncha?"

Let's see: You're talkin' to yourself after finally admitting that you not only can't prove anything, you never will be able to be able to prove anything and taking me to task for posting at 7:03PM on Christmas Eve and you're accusing me of being "off the meds," little fella?

Nice try. No sale.
 

No, Anonymous 10:38 aint me. Your an equal-opportunity, omnibus insult machine. Congrats.
 

Anonymous said...

"No, Anonymous 10:38 aint me. Your an equal-opportunity, omnibus insult machine. Congrats."

Why, thanks. If you say so.

And given that you're posting under the same screen name I would know that ......how?

If you don't wanna be mistaken for someone else get your own screen name. If you wanna lay in the weeds, be generic and "anonymous", stick with what you're doin'.
 

Matt Dunne for Governor.