Quote of the Day
We have a great place for agriculture. We have the right climate and soils, but our cost of doing business is so much higher. The problem is Olympia. They just don’t understand agriculture — how we have to compete against other states and other countries.
Vander Kooy
March 17, 2026
What’s the matter with Washington? | Capital Press
I can not tell you how many people in the last couple of months have told me they have to leave Washington State. Today someone told me he and his wife were looking for a new place to live. The currently living in Lewiston Idaho. His wife found a nice home in Clarkston, Washington just across the river from Idaho where he has his own business. He pointed out to his wife what the business tax rate in Washington and that was enough to kill the Clarkston house without going into all the gun issues.
Washington State Democrats are full blown socialists, and some even wear that badge with pride. Socialism always kills businesses, they take your guns, and sometimes then murder their citizens, too. Don’t give socialists your support or your tax dollars. Move out of socialist states.
I saw the writing on the wall well over 10 years ago, and made the move from WA to MT 6+ years ago.
When are you moving?
Kurt
When I don’t need the money from my current job and Barb is ready to move.
Let’s just hope that isn’t too late…
Kurt
I bailed from CO 15 years ago because I could see the writing on the wall there. I hope I don’t have to refugee again as I am really too old now.
I agree with the age part – I’m too old to want to pack up and/or sell a few decades of accumulated stuff. And, land prices in free states like Idaho have increased sharply since the exodus from Washington, Oregon, and CA.
But, there might be some new opportunities for those who are considering a move, but don’t want to move to Tornado Alley or a flat, boring place like Florida. I suspect that may be great opportunities soon in Venezuela, Argentina, and Iran! Interesting places, nice climate, and newly freed citizens!
Iran has a serious water problem. All of those have a language barrier for me. But other people might see some potential if those places can embrace liberty more than they currently do.
The would be hard-pressed to be more destructive if they tried.
Ergo, I’m strongly suspecting that destruction IS the goal.
Let me rephrase:
I KNOW the goal of some of the people in power around the world is suffering, death and destruction, given things like this: https://xcancel.com/NicHulscher/status/2035762328503763012
I suspect it’s the goal of a significant portion of them here in WA state, possibly even a majority, but they can’t just come out and say that.
Four of my five grandchildren were from vaccinated parents. They are all healthy. My actuary contacts in the health insurance business tell me claims such as yours are, “Absolutely crazy. We see no evidence of that.”
And a reminder that in less than a year, you will owe me five ounces of silver for our bet about mass deaths and criminal charges for people related to the mRNA vaccines.
Sadly, this is where the road from secrecy and abuse of power leads. The COVID era public health establishment basically destroyed public trust. The damage from that will be far greater than the damage from the flawed vaccine.
Correction. “they appear healthy.”
An increase in child mortality doesn’t mean they all die. It means more of them die.
I see different report with different claims on death-rates. There is a strong incentive to cover up mass deaths, as should be obvious, and fudge the numbers in as many ways as possible.
The mouse mRNA tests that showed premature ovarian failure in the otherwise apparently healthy offspring of the vaxxed mouse mothers means that we won’t really know if there is a long-term fertility problem until 2040 or so, though health problems are readily apparent to some.
I keep adding things to my plague pages. Think how long it’s taken for the mainstream establishment to even sort of recognize the problems with the regular childhood vaccine schedule WRT things like autism, even though the data is pretty obvious to a lot of people. The mass poising with mRNA will take a long time before clean internal data is released and acknowledged. I mean, most people still won’t acknowledge the 1223 people who died in the initial study, 2.5%.
Numbers that we can both agree on will be hard to find.
(To be clear: I really, REALLY hope you and the fam are totally healthy, and the jabs you got were among the roughly 30% of vax jabs that has virtually no reported side effects, in line with saline placebo shots, and were not in the <5% that had all the deaths, or the 65% of the shots with elevated rates of side effects. You can look up the batches at https://knollfrank.github.io/HowBadIsMyBatch/HowBadIsMyBatch.html and check them. You and your family are good peeps. I don't want to be right that there has been a lot of deaths and crippling from the jab, but the reports I'm seeing point that way. Definitely millions world-wide, a range from something like a half-mill to a couple 1.5 million domestic to the USA, and several times that being disabled. A cousin of mine jabbed for travel and work, younger than me, died from turbo-cancer last year, for example. Can I prove cause-effect? No, but very healthy to dead that fast in her 50s is not normal.)
And why don’t the health insurance companies see the trend?
“Think how long it’s taken for the mainstream establishment to even sort of recognize the problems with the regular childhood vaccine schedule WRT things like autism, even though the data is pretty obvious to a lot of people.”
The “vaccines cause autism” crowd has been on that train HARD since long before ANY evidence of it was available. That always makes me concerned about the evidence being produced to match.
And their original theory on it (themerisol) has been proven as not the culprit (VERY VERY thoroughly), which makes it even more suspect.
Not “I know it’s wrong” suspect, just… way-too-often-evidence-is-produced-to-fit-the-deeply-desired-theory suspect. Sometimes, it is actually correct.
High taxation and socialism aren’t the same thing. Although I could do with lower taxes, my larger concern is that my tax dollars are going to fund a war against Iran that’s entirely designed for the benefit of a corrupt oligarchy.
I genuinely don’t understand conservatives (“conservatives”) who claim to be all about small government and frugality and all the rest, who then turn around and support spending hundreds of billions of dollars bombing the middle east for no reason other than Netenyahu wants to. We “obliterated” the nuclear sites months ago, right? That was the claim, but apparently we’ll just find new sites to bomb as long as it’s convenient and then lie about our success there too.
Those tax dollars y’all are so worked up about giving to the government are being used to distract from the Epstein files and the fact that the president is a pedophile rapist (not that he’s alone, mind you…apparently QAnon was right in broad strokes, just not the details. And I can’t believe I just said that.).
Where’s the outrage about the corruption? 5 minutes before Trump made his latest announcements somebody bought a shit ton of market futures that just *happened* to predict what the president announced 5 minutes later. What a coinky-dink.
Conservatives in general and Republicans in particular have flushed any credibility on being concerned about government spending down the toilet for at least a generation.
Here’s a great analysis of the massive market short: https://open.substack.com/pub/gothburz/p/the-fourteen-minute-window?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
That doesn’t really qualify as “analysis”. Grok describes it as “Pointed commentary, not literal truth.”
Fair enough. It’s a great “breakdown of the scenario from one guy pointing out some shit that can’t possibly be innocent activity and that if we had a functioning government would be immediately prosecuted.”
Throw it on the pile. When there’s any evidence that kind of thing will be prosecuted even-handedly (not just ORANGE MAN BAD, but the people doing openly for years, such as Pelosi), then I’ll be ready to listen.
Same thing with your “they arrested Prince Andrew, so they really are serious about pedophiles” while ignoring the vast rape and grooming scandal that has been open and public for years.
Using laws selectively is unjust.
I’m glad we don’t live in the world in your imagination, completely disconnected to reality like you are. Sounds like a lousy place.
In other words, I’m done repeatedly telling you about the obvious falsehoods you believe in or pointing out the INFINITE double-standards you scream to the world. Maybe someone else has the patience to try again.
One exception: high taxation and socialism are indeed not the same thing! Congratulations on knowing something.
But using high taxation in specific ways can be a fairly good approximation of most aspects of socialism, especially in a system where many of the worst acts of actual socialism are prevented by the Constitution.
When the people calling themselves socialists are trying very hard (and often quite explicitly) to implement socialism as close as they can in our system, calling them socialists and what they are doing socialism seems pretty reasonable to an awful lot of people on both sides of the aisle. In fact, in most cases, the people I see complaining about that usage of term are running cover for them, trying to make them seem less maliciously unreasonable (and “maliciously unreasonable” is the NICE thing to call them).
“I’m done repeatedly telling you”
And yet here you are, typing away….
“And yet here you are, typing away….”
I acknowledged the one part of what you said that had any relevance, out of a sense of fairness.
As I’ve said to you before, I have given up convincing YOU, anyway – when I take the time to answer you, it’s primarily for the benefit of others who might otherwise get misled when they read your ravings.
Awwww, that’s so sweet of you. I’m sure this crowd in particular is easily misled, and will greatly appreciate your efforts!
Please provide the evidence for the pedophile rapist claim. Didn’t we go over this once before? And you gave up looking for the evidence.
My view on the government spending issue is that whoever is in power is carving up the carcass of the government trying to get all they can before the meat goes bad. Politicians, you can’t trust ’em and it is illegal to shoot ’em.
That was before the latest batch of Epstein files dropped. Can’t render a list for you tonight, but my reading over the past month convinces me he’s a pedo rapist. Too many of the files are showing activity that doesn’t *prove* he’s a pedo rapist, but stretch the bounds of credulity to think he isn’t.
And we don’t even have all the files. And the ones we have that are being viewed by congress people in unredacted form (sitting in front of a terminal without a notepad, mind you) who say “OMG this is some horrible shit.”
We may have them soon, though, since other countries take pedophilia seriously, and are actually prosecuting the people who they know did it, starting with Prince Andrew. They’re demanding the unredacted files, and if delivered, those will get widely distributed to make the truth more clear (whatever that may be).
Can I prove he’s a pedo rapist? No. But there’s way too much shit on his side of the scale for me to believe he’s a bystander.
So far there is zero evidence that Epstein or anyone connected with him are pedophiles. The evidence is about girls under the age of consent which is not the same thing. In some cases, it is not even that. The connection with Noam Chomsky appears to be fiscal and in the case for Larry Summers it appears to be advice for the lovelorn. Epstein seemed to be running an influence network with the attractions be money, sex, and just connections to other influencers. In other words a spy network. Probably part of MI6 but Mossad and CIA can’t be discounted. The spying may be why governments are so reluctant to disclose stuff.
I don’t know many women who would see any value in making a distinction between pedophilia and wanting to have sex with teenagers. It’s a very male thing to try and say “If there’s grass on the field, play ball!” (That’s Kid Rock saying that. He also said “Young ladies, young ladies, I like ’em underage, see. Some say that’s statutory,” Kid Rock sings. “But I say it’s mandatory,” Joe C. sings in response.”)
And again, I go back to the basics: if Biden were in office and he was in the files, conservatives would be having hearings and prosecutions and the whole nine yards. And they’d be SCREAMING if the AG prevented them from seeing all the files. But instead it’s their guy in office, and their power at stake, so they’re fine with the AG preventing access and redacting the names of powerful people, and they’re bending over backwards to make distinctions like the one you did to try and excuse Trump’s behavior as “distasteful but acceptable.”
If Trump is innocent, why hasn’t he sued anybody for defamation? This is the guy who’s *famous* for suing people who even look at him funny, but this, this is the issue where he doesn’t go to a lawyer? Doesn’t fit the pattern.
And why aren’t Republicans saying “Let’s get it all out there, all the files, all the videos, all the pictures, let’s just clear the record and move on”? Instead it’s excuses and deflections and meaningless distinctions, and then convenient war to distract from all of it.
Call me all the names you want, it’s just not reasonable to claim he’s clean.
The Biden administration had those files and did nothing with them. If there was dirt in them, they could have used them against Trump. They could even have prosecuted him. Other Democrats had no qualms about prosecuting him even when the circumstances were marginal.
I’m guessing there are prominent democrats and foreign nationals who were friends that they didn’t want to get caught in the dragnet. Like the ones who’ve already been forced to resign or go under prosecution.
One could guess the Republicans/conservatives are using similar rationalizations.
A pox on all of them.
“But instead it’s their guy in office, and their power at stake, so they’re fine with the AG preventing access and redacting the names of powerful people, ”
You have said stuff like that several times, and I have pointed out several times that it is untrue. You are projecting Democrat behaviour.
MOST conservatives I have had ANY interaction with this on want the actual people who did it prosecuted – let it all come out, let the chips fall where the may.
“And why aren’t Republicans saying “Let’s get it all out there, all the files, all the videos, all the pictures, let’s just clear the record and move on”?”
Most of them are.
And the double-standard on this is absurd. People post pictures of Trump and Epstein from 30 years ago like it’s some kind of indictment but ignore pictures of (for instance) the Clintons and Epstein from 10, long after his first exposure (which Trump helped bring about!).
“Call me all the names you want, it’s just not reasonable to claim he’s clean.”
Considering the unbelievable and in many cases clearly unethical (and in some cases, clearly *illegal*) lengths the previous administration and many other Democrat-controlled governments (city or state) went to to try to “get” Trump, it is completely unreasonable to think there’s anything in there on him. JUST THAT point is sufficient for it to be completely __reasonable__ to think he’s clean (on the Epstein stuff at least). If there was anything there, *THEY WOULD HAVE USED IT*.
Of course, it’s a pretty good piece of evidence just in general, too. There’s a decent argument that he is the single most-investigated person in the history of humanity at this point, and they still had to come up with entirely novel theories and/or falsify things (or accuse him of time travel, as in New York) to come up with criminal charges.
Hence my description as “not illegal, just scummy”. But you just can’t deal with it, so you continue to make ridiculous claims, not just with no evidence, but AGAINST evidence.
“Most of them are.”
You’re contradicting your own argument. If republicans *are* trying to get the files fully released, that would imply there’s evidence to be examined, so why would my stance be, as you put it “against evidence?” The evidence isn’t yet visible, right, hence “most” republicans calling for its release.
But most republicans aren’t calling for the release of the epstein files, and the few that are, like Thomas Massie, are being thwarted by republican leadership. Because let’s remember that the republicans are currently in control of all three branches of government. If they wanted the files released, they’d be released. Republicans don’t want them released for the same reason Democrats don’t: a wide blast radius.
“You’re contradicting your own argument. If republicans *are* trying to get the files fully released, that would imply there’s evidence to be examined, so why would my stance be, as you put it “against evidence?””
This is very easy to understand.
COULD Trump be guilty? COULD there be evidence? Yes. It seems extremely unlikely for several reasons, but I (and most conservatives) want the actual evidence released, and let all the pedophiles go to jail. If that includes Trump, fine.
But at the moment, there is NOT evidence that Trump is in there and significant reasons to think he isn’t, logically speaking. Hence, *for the evidence we have now*, saying that Trump IS likely to be a pedophile based on the Epstein files is “against evidence”, meaning “against the evidence we have now”. That’s ALWAYS what “against evidence” means.
This is a very simple concept.
“But most republicans aren’t calling for the release of the epstein files, and the few that are, like Thomas Massie, are being thwarted by republican leadership”
The Republican politicians IN OFFICE passed a law demanding the release. Not sure what else you want them to do to – take up arms and go raid the FBI building or something? Literally MILLIONS of pages of documents have been released, and more will continue to be released.
You keep saying these kinds of things that are explicitly and factually false, and its very tiresome.
“Not sure what else you want them to do to”
Enforce the law. They have lots of tools at their disposal to force the executive to obey, but the Republican leadership is uninterested in doing that. Which is why month after month the DOJ gets away with not obeying the law (both in release of documents and proper redaction).
It is, as you like to say, “quite simple.”
“Enforce the law.”
I pass a law. It requires you to do 500 hours of work. The due date is tomorrow.
OH LOOK, YOU BROKE THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!one!!!!!
The redactions are required by the law. They are doing the redactions and releasing the documents. It’s happening – you claim to have been reading them!!! Sorry they can’t time travel or use the powers of the Flash to get it done fast enough for you.
Of course, Trump clearly CAN time travel (he was convicted of it in New York – “influencing an election” by… making payments AFTER said election), so he must be hiding something. Yes, your logic is so very, very sound. /SARC
Remind me again how long they’ve known they were going to have to release these files?
As for the redactions, it’s clear that they’re redacting names of perpetrators, not just victims (and actually there are a bunch of cases where victim names aren’t redacted). On top of that there are large sections of text being redacted that shouldn’t be, as we now know from the members of congress who go in and view the unredacted files and then come out to let us know what’s actually in there.
Which is not surprising if the government has something to hide. Make the process as slow as possible, conceal as much as possible, follow the law only when forced to. (And even then they’re still not following it…not enough force, apparently)
“On top of that there are large sections of text being redacted that shouldn’t be, as we now know from the members of congress who go in and view the unredacted files and then come out to let us know what’s actually in there.”
And we can TOTALLY trust those guys to be telling us the truth, OH YEAH!
Adam Schiff on the Trump/Russia thing, Harry “He didn’t win, did he?” Reid on Romney’s taxes, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
It doesn’t matter their track record of lying in general or about Trump in specific, THIS time, they’re telling the truth, yep, uh huh!
“As for the redactions, it’s clear that they’re redacting names of perpetrators, not just victims (and actually there are a bunch of cases where victim names aren’t redacted)”
What?!? The government doing a bad job at redacting??? THAT’S never happened before…………
“Which is not surprising if the government has something to hide. Make the process as slow as possible, conceal as much as possible, follow the law only when forced to.”
Yes, welcome to “every time the government does almost anything”. I don’t like it… but it’s not some new thing, not some “only in this case” thing. Heck, if they WEREN’T doing that I’d be surprised, and you’d still have some complaint, I’d wager… which is pretty safe wager, since they’ll never do that, so we’ll never know.
As Joe said above, “A pox on all of them.”
But “normal behaviour from the government” doesn’t magically make the evidence what you want it to be, either.
“That was before the latest batch of Epstein files dropped. Can’t render a list for you tonight, but my reading over the past month convinces me he’s a pedo rapist.”
No, factually, that is false, because you were ALREADY convinced of that long ago, without any evidence at all. We’ve been through this before, and you have stated it before. You were not “convinced” by this reading.
“We may have them soon, though, since other countries take pedophilia seriously, and are actually prosecuting the people who they know did it, starting with Prince Andrew. ”
Right, “seriously”. Get back to me when they do something about the MASSIVE rape/grooming ring that has been running for years there. What a ridiculous joke.
“They’re demanding the unredacted files, and if delivered, those will get widely distributed to make the truth more clear (whatever that may be).”
I am absolutely FOR that, and let the chips fall where they may – well, no, let them fall where the evidence proves.
And then, MAYBE, finally, some of the crazy people (like you) who believe whatever they WANT to be true regardless of evidence, would stop bothering the rest of us with their craziness on this topic.
(No, I don’t expect you to be convinced it isn’t true. Ever, no matter the level of evidence. As you have flat out admitted in previous threads, you believe without regard to evidence and expect the same of the rest of us.)
You said you were done with me, but here you are, making sure the unwashed masses aren’t taken in by my seductive wordcraft. If only I’d known earlier that my words were so compelling….
You’re right. I shouldn’t have worded it that way – it was inaccurate.
I was tired of crap at the time and didn’t have the emotional energy to wade through your stupids line by line. I shouldn’t have worded it in such a permanent fashion. I apologize for that.
Something else you are right about:
“But there’s way too much shit on his side of the scale for me to believe he’s a bystander.”
That’s right, he wasn’t – he was an informant, who actively blew the whistle on what was happening. And then, when that didn’t really fix it (he got a slap on the wrist the first time, and a bunch of people, including a bunch of VERY big name Democrats, went right back to hanging out with him), he got it ACTUALLY dealt with when he was President.
Yep, not a bystander. MUCH better than a bystander.
I’m big on evidence – I will acknowledge when you are correct about things.
“he was an informant, who actively blew the whistle on what was happening”
Are we talking about the same guy?
– “Grab ’em by the pussy”
– “If she wasn’t my daughter we’d probably be dating.”
– [about a 10 year old girl] “I’m going to be dating her in 10 years, can you believe it?”
– “You know, it really doesn’t matter what they write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass. But she’s got to be young and beautiful.”
-” I’ve known Paris Hilton from the time she’s 12, her parents are friends of mine, and the first time I saw her [she was 12] she walked into the room and I said, ‘Who the hell is that?'”
– “What do you think of Lindsay Lohan? There’s something there, right? But you have to like freckles. I’ve seen a close-up of her chest. And a lot of freckles. Are you into freckles? … She’s probably deeply troubled, and therefore great in bed.”
I mean c’mon, this is not an innocent bystander. Go show these quotes to any woman without attribution (i.e. don’t tell them Trump said it) and ask her what she thinks of the guy who said them. What do you think her response will be?
And those aren’t even part of the Epstein files. Or the E. Jean Carroll case, or the Stormy Daniels case.
Dude is a sexual predator. Lots of men don’t think so because they’re sympathetic to his way of thinking. And the only women I see defending him benefit directly from doing so. Take away his position of power and he’d be in jail.
Just a point of information for you.
Former Prince Andrew was not arrested or charged for any possible sexual relations with that young lady. Age of consent in Britain is 16 year of age, unless it can be proven that Andrew *himself* paid her for sex in which case she would need to be 18 years of age.
He, Andrew, was arrested for disclosing state secrets. No doubt because the optics of all of this is very bad for the Royal Family and something needs to be seen being done about it; this is something that can arrest him on, use to remove him from public life, and say “There…he’s been dealt with.”
“What do you think her response will be?”
That he’s scummy. As I have said, many times.
That’s it. All you have is innuendo. For instance, this one:
“[about a 10 year old girl] “I’m going to be dating her in 10 years, can you believe it?””
How old would she be in 10 years again? Oh, right…
The only one of those that is even potentially a problem (legally – most of them are fairly scummy) is the one about Linsay Lohan, but you didn’t specify her age, and considering how careful he has generally been about what he says about the under age (*or you would have better quotes*), it seems extremely unlikely that she was underage at the time (or the place supplying you with the stuff to make Trump look bad would say so, as they did with the 10YO one).
100% scummy, yep. Done, *pre-emptively* agreed to (as in, before I ever interacted with you).
“Or the E. Jean Carroll case, or the Stormy Daniels case.”
You mean the one where she made up stupid BS without so much as knowing the year but a New York jury gave her money anyway, and the case where Trump was the victim of a shakedown? Yes, literally – Daniels admitted the elements of that UNDER OATH.
Trump is a bad man because… he was the victim of a shakedown. That’s how disconnected from reality you are.
“Take away his position of power and he’d be in jail.”
FOR WHAT? The worst accusation he has is from Carrol, and that case is utterly absurd *going on just logic from the case itself*: there are exactly two “witnesses”, one of whom said nothing happened, the other of whom said he raped her… and the jury found that he DIDN’T rape her, but decided to give her money for “sexual assault”, which is not what she said happened. I don’t need to know ANYTHING else about the case to know it’s BS.
Take away his position, and none of these accusations would get any attention at all. The obsession with “getting the bad Orange Man” is the only reason any of these have gotten any press.