Andy Duyck: I get to break the laws I don't like
Carla Axtman
Washington County is a hotbed of political activity right now. Candidate campaign signs litter the landscape, begging voters to embed the name of the candidates into their already overwhelmed brains. It's difficult to sit at a stoplight at a busy intersection or drive along the main arterials without massive campaign signs (both in number and size) vying for attention.
One of the more ubiquitous offenders of the sign litter is County Commission Chair Candidate Andy Duyck. In his campaign's effort to get the little ballot dot colored in next to his name, Duyck has deliberately broken Washington County's laws on sign size.
There's no doubt that some of the campaign signs of Andy Duyck, who is running for chair of the county Board of Commissioners in Washington County, exceed 16 square feet, an apparent violation of county community development code.
But when confronted with the violation at Tuesday's meeting of the board, Duyck, the current commissioner of District 4, said he would ignore the code because it flies in the face of the freedom of speech guaranteed in the Constitution.
Nothing in Duyck's posted job and education history indicates that he has any special knowledge of the law, Constitutional or other. So the fact that he considers himself the arbiter of law in this situation is odd and frankly, troubling.
The ordinance/law in question has never been struck down by any court. Its bizarre is that Duyck is willing to simply thumb his nose at an established law because in his opinion, it doesn't count. So what other established laws does Duyck dislike and plan to break should he become the Chair of Washington County Commission? Perhaps there's a rule or ordinance about certain ways land is allowed to be zoned that he'll simply ignore? Or maybe there's some public access to meetings required under state statute that simply rub Andy the wrong way--so they won't be followed?
It seems odd that a guy who is running for a job that requires the following of a bunch of state and county rules and laws has decided that he'll break them at his whim. As Chair, Duyck would have a special responsibility to make decisions about the direction of the Commission. Breaking rules and laws willy-nilly because Duyck decides they don't fit with his unchallenged view of the Constitution is a pretty irresponsible precedent for a guy who wants that kind of responsibility.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
12:55 p.m.
May 10, '10
Can you spell "Hypocrisy"? How is it you are comfortable calling Duyck out for the size of his campaign signs (a code violation of questionable legality punishable by a small insignificant fine)yet in too many of your other posts and comments to count you openly advocate for the continued violation of federal law by the illegal who have over run, taken jobs, taken scarce social safety net resources, taken scarce and expensive health care resources away from legal americans and threaten to bankrupt this entire country? Felonies in this country. Where is your outrage for the felonies your endorse? Please don't tell me you used it all up on Mr. Duycks code violation
1:00 p.m.
May 10, '10
This is not a post about illegal immigration. Please stay on topic.
1:03 p.m.
May 10, '10
Cameron:
Can I expect that you'll be calling for the removal of Duyck's signs on your blog, then?
1:05 p.m.
May 10, '10
Btw, I haven't advocated for the breaking of the Arizona law. The law is wrong and racist, IMO. But it's in the courts, where it should be--and if Duyck had any integrity, its where he would take his complaint rather than just breaking the law.
1:18 p.m.
May 10, '10
I was referring to your attempt to justify the 12 million illegal aliens in this country by saying it was ok because someone had convinced you they paid taxes.
3:57 p.m.
May 10, '10
Are you saying undocumented imigrants don't pay taxes?
1:43 p.m.
May 10, '10
The law has been in effect on the federal level for a long time and does not mention race
3:58 p.m.
May 10, '10
the 4th amendment has been in effect a lot longer and is violated by the AZ law. That said, I am probably already helping you to derail the thread even more form the actual topic of this post.
So for that I say to Carla and Kari, mea culpa.
4:10 p.m.
May 10, '10
Cameron, you're incoherent and badly off-topic.
1:03 p.m.
May 10, '10
Thanks, Carla, for this post.
There's an important point hidden here. We're talking about a COUNTY ordinance. Duyck is a COUNTY commissioner.
If he believes the law is unconstitutional, has he introduced legislation to repeal or amend it in the county ordinance?
If not, Duyck is running the risk of exposing the county to a lawsuit - brought by a campaign (his, or someone else's) - that could cost the county substantial resources in defense of the law.
If the ordinance is legit, Duyck should follow the law. If the ordinance isn't legit, Duyck should - at minimum - seek to repeal or amend it.
1:06 p.m.
May 10, '10
Another point, addressing Duyck's constitutional concern:
I'm a free speech absolutist, but "time, place, and manner" restrictions are perfectly acceptable.
You can't have a huge outdoor live music performance in your backyard at 3 a.m. You have to get a parade permit to march through downtown.
There are lots of examples where the speech itself is acceptable, but where reasonable regulations are evenly applied for reasonable reasons.
Duyck is all wet here.
1:16 p.m.
May 10, '10
Question? Is this the same Duyck whose position in the legislature was eliminated when they re-drew the lines and he lived on the wrong side of the street? (I remember reading something about someone I think with that name?) I wasn't trying to derail the obvious point here, only sharing an observation that challenges the credibility of Carla's outrage over the sign issue, which you have to admit would be more credible had she demonstrated a history of advocating for all of our laws ...and ordinances to be followed by everyone. Since that isn't the case this looks to me like a manufactured outrage based upon Duycks politics rather than the size of his signs? How much too big are they? I don't get out that way very often.
1:21 p.m.
May 10, '10
Cameron:
The signage information is in the news story I linked.
Your observation about me is erroneous as I haven't advocated for breaking the law--I've advocated for challenging the law, which is what Duyck would do if he had integrity and cared about personal responsibility.
So I'll ask again: in your effort to remain consistent about all things following the law, will you now be putting up a post on your blog advocating for the removal of Duyck's signs until and unless the ordinance is struck down in court?
1:42 p.m.
May 10, '10
Mr. Duyck is not running for office in the county where I am registered to vote. So no I probably won't be mentioning it the whole thing seems sort of trivial but then again I haven't read the story. My advocacy or outrage over things in this world isn't dependent on the person being a liberal democrat or a moderate Republican but only whether I think what they are doing is wrong or right.
4:00 p.m.
May 10, '10
"My advocacy or outrage over things in this world isn't dependent on the person being a liberal democrat or a moderate Republican but only whether I think what they are doing is wrong or right."
Oh? Given your outrage of anything you deem to be "liberal" makes your claim ring hollow in my ears.
1:36 p.m.
May 10, '10
Three observations: 1. In Salem, city works staffers are under orders to pull any and all signs that violate code. AND THEY DO, with gusto.
This Duyck comes off like a someone I wouldn't vote for.
I bet if Carla was voting for Duyck, we wouldn't have seen this post.
1:45 p.m.
May 10, '10
Michael:
If that were the case that I never call people out who I vote for, I'd never have gone after Tom Brian (Washington County Commission), Ron Wyden or David Wu. I have with all 3.
1:52 p.m.
May 10, '10
I just read the story...your post didn't mention these signs were on private property. I think the county is on real shaky ground thinking they can regulate political speech in this state that doesn't cause a traffic hazard or isn't located on public property. I agree if those signs were advertising a business and were more permanent and ongoing then the oridinnce would have more friction but political speech on private property of a temporary nature not creating any public nusiance or hazard of any kind? Not in a state where the suprme court held that child porn was protected speech. UIf I were a county worker I would be very careful walking onto someone else's property and tearing down their a sign which is clearly protected political speech
1:53 p.m.
May 10, '10
are you endorsing and voting for Wu's opponent? Maybe we can agree on something... :,)
8:29 p.m.
May 10, '10
I would like to hear the answer to that question too Carla? Are you going to vote for washington county and this state to fall two more years behind by electing capt kirk wu?
1:55 p.m.
May 10, '10
so you would agree with breaking the law even if not struck down in court?
2:01 p.m.
May 10, '10
What I visualize in this case Carla are some of those big 4x8 signs that sit well off the road in the middle of someone's grass seed field that I have seen many times out there. If the court says it's not protected speech then I would politily disagree and follow the law. The rule of law is the only thing that holds together a civilized society. At this point in time I would do what Duyck is doing and make the county press the issue so we can get the correct answer from the courts
2:06 p.m.
May 10, '10
You either agree with the rule of law or you don't, Cameron. You claimed at the top of this that I'm a "hypocrite" because you erroneously observed that I was advocating for those here illegally to break the law. Yet you admit your own hypocrisy by advocating for breaking the law here.
3:02 p.m.
May 10, '10
There is a huge difference between advocating, encouraging and complimenting people who violate our court tested federal criminal laws and a man who is being civilly disobedient to a county civil ordinance that even the article you referenced said has some exposure to freedom of the speech challenges. I am also a big believer in a persons private property rights.
4:14 p.m.
May 10, '10
Try again. The law isn't an 'either, or' proposition, Cameron. Duyck is not engaged in "civil disobedience." He's flat out violating the law because he claims to be priviliged enough not to have to comply.
8:06 p.m.
May 10, '10
And Duyck agreed to pay the fine ...case closed
8:12 p.m.
May 10, '10
Cased closed? Hardly.
There's still a bunch of Andy Duyck signs out there in violation of the law. The case will be closed when Duyck is in compliance with the law.
2:32 p.m.
May 10, '10
"I think the county is on real shaky ground thinking they can regulate political speech in this state that doesn't cause a traffic hazard or isn't located on public property."
They're on 100% solid ground today, this election season, where the violations occurred. It is the law of the land, and your assertions on the viability of the law are irrelevant. If Duyck doesn't understand that he is subject to laws that he might think are improper, that's quite a problem for him IMO.
And PS--being in this country illegally is not only not a felony, it's not even a crime, strictly speaking.
3:05 p.m.
May 10, '10
It's a felony to enter this country illegally and a person with no visa and no passport (just an Oregon drivers license and a fistful of Oregon trail cards) would be hard pressed to convince a jury that his presence here did not involve the commission of a felony
4:15 p.m.
May 10, '10
Being an undocumented immigrant, nor simply trying to entering the by avoidance of examination or inspection, is not a felony. It violates Federal law, but is not classified as a felony.
Mark is technically correct here.
8:15 p.m.
May 10, '10
and technically speaking the federal statutes don't use the term "undocumented immigrant" they are called "illegal aliens" almost exclusively. An undocumented immigrant describes someone who has entered this country legally and not received his documents yet but it tends to confer legitimacy on his presence in this country. Illegal aliens on the other hand are neither legitimately here nor welcome to stay until they go through the process we as a people have determined allows us the opportunity to investigate that person and make sure he possess the qualities we are looking for as a country. Those are the rules and that is the law ... but illegal aliens are illegal undocumented immigrants are quasi illegal but probably have the right to be here for now
8:08 p.m.
May 10, '10
Strictly speaking its a misdemeanor to be here illegally and but you commit a felony getting here and of course ID theft is also a felony. Duyck said he would pay the fine ... next!
1:38 p.m.
May 11, '10
you don't commit any crimes if you arrive legally, which is what an estimated 50% of undocumented immigrants are--overstayers and people waiting on paperwork. And strictly speaking, being here illegally is an administrative violation. No one is charged with illegal presence in the US, misdemeanor or otherwise.
8:02 p.m.
May 11, '10
I did some research of your claim that being in this country illegally not being a crime and you are 100% wrong. In fact it is a felony.
8:57 p.m.
May 10, '10
A lot of signs put out by registered Republican candidates are all in the right of way and on public land. It's all pretty stupid since a well written voter pamphlet statement will get you a lot farther than any amount of signs.
1:26 a.m.
May 11, '10
Ames Curtwright has a large sign on the I-5 right-of-way just north of Salem. I called their campaign about it, but it's still there.
IOKIYAR: It's OK if you're a Republican.
10:32 p.m.
May 10, '10
Don't be stupid.
There are all sorts of regulations related to signs on private property. Billboards, murals, electronic signs, etc.
They all have reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.
10:35 p.m.
May 10, '10
FYI, my comment was a reply to Cameron above, at 1:52. (JG is exactly right.)
1:54 p.m.
May 10, '10
I don't understand why city staff in Portland don't pull illegal signs. It has been a head-shaking experience to drive past all the Dan Staton for Sheriff signs in the public right-of-way. If you can't get your campaign supporters to obey the law, where are we?
A lot of Commissioner Saltzman's signs appear to be in public right-of-way, often in multi-business locations likely owned by developers and property managers. But again, the signs are on city property.
2:28 p.m.
May 10, '10
Cameron,
I think you fail to understand some of the basic tenants of a law like this. ODOT, for instance, does not allow signage in its right-of-way without a special permit. Even private property next to a state highway is limited to the size and type of signage that's allowed. Why? It's a safety hazard, because drivers can be distracted by too many things on the road. It can also be an aesthetic nuisance. Too many lawn signs, especially larger in size, can just make the landscape look littered.
As Kari said earlier, nobody is limiting his free speech, especially since every candidate is held to the same standard. I agree wholeheartedly with Carla: even if you disagree with the law, as an elected officials your obligation is to follow it and enforce, until such a time you choose to challenge it.
2:58 p.m.
May 10, '10
"until such a time you choose to challenge it," and win.
3:08 p.m.
May 10, '10
so then you are also in favor of sending back every person who is in this country illegally until such time as they find some legal right to be here or successfully challenge the laws that forbid it? That was the basis of my first post highlighting Carla's hypocrisy. Do you also share that hypocrisy with her or do you really believe all of our laws should be followed?
3:12 p.m.
May 10, '10
Cameron, your analogy just doesn't match up, and that's costing your point.
If Andy Duyck simply drove around Washington County and saw Greg Mecklam, Dick Schouten and Chuck Riley signs in violation of law, that would be what you're referring to with immigration law.
Now, on the other hand, if Carla has been spending weekends going down to Juarez and smuggling folks across the border, that would be akin to Duyck's campaign's missteps.
3:23 p.m.
May 10, '10
You lost me on that... its as simple as this whether Andy Duyck or anyone else drives around and is required due to size and placement to look at other peoples larger than allowed signs so what? Those signs aren't taking away our resources from other oregonians, those signs will be gone on their own accord in a few months, and those signs don't sell drugs, don't have gang wars and don't have your ID in their wallett they have been using to buy cars, rent houses and work in this country all of which are felonies. DA Michael shrunk said the other day that budget cuts to his office will mean he won't be able to prosecute some crimes anymore. Do you think the crimes he chooses not to prosecute will be serious felonies like ID Theft and Drug crimes? or petty misdemeanors? or god forbid county civil ordinances that Duyck said he would gladly pay the fine on? Worrying about the size of someones lawn sign is like rearranging chairs on the titanic
1:29 a.m.
May 11, '10
On the other hand, those immigrants aren't asking people to put them in a position to make and enforce the law.
And that's an important part of this--Andy Duyck is running for public office, yet he sees fit only to obey certain laws.
10:20 a.m.
May 11, '10
You're mixing your counties up.
1:41 p.m.
May 11, '10
what does immigration have to do with crime? There's no connection between the two...?
8:05 p.m.
May 11, '10
What does illegal immigration have to do with crime or just immigration in general? Illegal immigration is about nothing but crime. Crimes committed entering, crimes committed by staying and crimes committed while staying here. over 1/3 of the prisoners in our federal system are illegals. The biggest argument against granting any type of amnesty IS crime.
2:58 p.m.
May 10, '10
The three key issues adjudicated by the courts in this area are (what, this isn't the first time this has come up??): is it a prohibition of speech? is it content neutral (not specific to political speech or other content; classically jurisdictions control all "temporary" but not specifically "political" signs)? and then you may ask, as Kari notes, are they "reasonable" time, place and size, etc. limitations?
If the designated size allows for reading the material at the normal speeds for the roads, then it would seem it was "reasonable" since larger doesn't change the ability to communicate the message.
3:16 p.m.
May 10, '10
How is it possible for people who live in a state with over 100,000 illegal aliens (who's very presence in this state logically makes then guilty of committing a felony) and who by and large remain in this state by liberating other people's social security numbers and ID able to ignore that problem or encourage more of it yet get worked into a lather over the size of Duycks signs on private property? Shouldn't we focus on solving the big crimes and making ourselves safer before we allocate any time and energy to the size of someone's political sign that will be gone on its own very shortly?
8:28 p.m.
May 10, '10
you are a breath of fresh air !
8:41 p.m.
May 10, '10
"guilty of committing a felony"
Being illegally present in Oregon is not a criminal offense, much less a felony.
2:54 a.m.
May 11, '10
You should take a look at Oregon's ID theft laws. I can't say there is no set of circumstances where it wouldn't be a felony to be in this state illegaly (based upon the basket of crimes that are committed and not just whether its a felony to be in the states illegaly because it's almost impossible to enter, avoid detection and then work (and those that don't work sell drugs which is equally illegal
5:08 a.m.
May 11, '10
"those that don't work sell drugs" - Well, there we go. All it took was one comment pointing out your ignorance of the actual law and, zing, you go right to rank bigotry. Thanks for exposing yourself.
8:19 p.m.
May 11, '10
It is your ignorance of both the law and reality that is at issue Dan. I think your need to advocate for those you see as oppressed has numbed your brain to the cold hard facts of real life. It isn't bigotry to point out that if you are in this country illegally and you are working then you have violated Oregons ID theft laws (which are extremely vague and overly broad) which leaves only a few other possibilities Dan Illegal aliens ( and it's your own tunnel visioned bigotry that immediately thinks I am thinking about only people from south of california) If they work they are working under the table, or have broken ID theft laws and if they don't work they either sell drugs or are feed from the public trough or are involved in some other sort of criminal enterprise. NONE of these are qualities we are looking for to invite into our country. Why can't you advocate for following the law? The first thing out of any left wingers mouth when they are questioned about their anti american beliefs is to cry "bigot bigot" and it doesn't phase me a bit so spare me the song and dance. I am not a hater or a bigot or any of the intolerant names you want to call me. Can't you see what Illegal immigration has done to this country?
10:19 a.m.
May 11, '10
wait minute, I thought the new improved Blueoregon was all about no more anonyposters. And yet, here is an anonyposter.
I am deeply and utterly disturbed at the hypocrisy....
12:32 p.m.
May 11, '10
Ron, if someone posts a comment and then subsequently flips their Facebook privacy settings down, their comment will be seen here as anonymous. (And then, we turn off their access.)
It's worth noting that the commenter formerly known as "Cameron Johnson" is now commenting with another profile -- so she/he is gone.
1:03 p.m.
May 11, '10
I'm actually not disturbed by the hypocrisy, but thanks for the explanation!
8:07 p.m.
May 11, '10
No one on the left usually is...at least not their own. At least you are candid enough to admit it. All I was trying to do with my first post was to see if Carla would admit to her own. (she won't)
12:02 a.m.
May 12, '10
Very few people admit to hypocrisy until they get caught in a stall in wide stance. Such is human nature.
Frankly I think the issue of Andy's signs are of small moment, of and by themselves, aside from your personal crusade to expose Carla's alleged hypocrisy, for the simple reason that I think Andy's going to lose. Signs are an enormously expensive and ineffective campaign tool. Signs do not identify voters, signs do not drive turn out. The fact that so many of Andy's signs are ending up in the public right of way or on abandoned properties are an indication that he doesn't have actual voters lined up willing to put those signs in their yards.
As a resident of Washington County I am dismayed to see campaigns littering and causing visual blight with their misplaced signs. I think it would be great if campaigns would pledge to obey the laws of sign placement (if not size). But, it's a momentary annoyance, because this sort of campaign behavior usually indicates that those candidates are going to lose. Which, in the end, is the best revenge.
7:50 p.m.
May 11, '10
My name is Cameron Jordan not Johnson. Due to someone having access to my facebook account and apparently leaving themselves a backdoor no matter what I did to secure it I was forced to create a new account. They were posting/commenting using my account and had defaced my profile several times. I am glad to see you missed me. And FYI, I only post under my own name.
9:17 p.m.
May 11, '10
And here you're posting under NO name, apparently.
8:07 p.m.
May 11, '10
It absolutely is a crime ...Look it up.
1:42 p.m.
May 11, '10
"(who's very presence in this state logically makes then guilty of committing a felony)"
You've got a pretty severe logical flaw...half of them entered legally.
3:43 p.m.
May 10, '10
Since no laws should govern political speech, as some would argue, I would like to see some D place a 100 foot tall blue donkey in a field that shoots fire from its arse, blows candy from its nose and has a HD media display embedded in its body to display messages.
I dare the GOP to top that.......and if they do, we'll just have to come up with something bigger and better.
Codes exist for a reason!
3:49 p.m.
May 10, '10
Thanks, Cameron! I understand from your argument that I may ignore as many of the local statutes and regulations as I please until the issue of illegal immigration is sorted out, because we really should be concentrating on larger enforcement issues... I'm glad you'll have my back, and I know I can call on you for my defense when and if I am apprehended!
8:23 p.m.
May 10, '10
Ron thats not what she said at all. I know the hardest thing for for people to do is to recognize their own hypocrisy because they have blinders on called 'ego' what I heard her say was Duyck is violating a county ordinance, said he would pay the fine and thinks this civil ordinance suppresses his free speech if the county wants to go after him beyond that he will let the couts decide it. Cameron thinks it's hypocritical to get worked up over duycks sign while 100k illegal aliens roam the state. And of course she is correct. how can anyone objective not see that one?
8:32 p.m.
May 10, '10
Duyck is in compliance with the ordinance when his signs are down. Not by simply paying a fine. Duyck doesn't get to ignore the law because he thinks it violates his free speech. He gets to take it to court. Otherwise, he's outside the law--and then it's appropriate to ask which other laws Duyck will decide to violate should he be elected Washington County Commission Chair.
Your defense of Cameron is admirable but without merit. Cameron articulated it's okay to break the law when you don't like the law. And apparently, you think as long as the fine is paid but the signs are still out there that it's "case closed"--which makes absolutely no sense.
2:49 a.m.
May 11, '10
The problem is this: you are having one conversation with her (Cameron) down here (holds hand waist high) about Duycks alleged violation of a county ordinance (yawn...like a parking ticket) she is having a much headier conversation with you (or trying too) up here (holds hand up high) and you can't pull your self away from the 'so what' conversation out of anger or spite or __ fill in the blank. (and she is obviously thru having it with you)So you decided to tell everyone (and me) she said "break the law if you feel like it" and unfortunately, that’s a lie. She did not say that! What those of us without an agenda heard and read was this:
"I would politily disagree and follow the law. The rule of law is the only thing that holds together a civilized society"
That’s a long ways from go break any law you don't agree with don't you think? even if you still think by saying "follow the law" she really meant 'go break any law you don't like' the way you claim we aren't talking about breaking a law Carla, we are talking about violating an ordinance and the only person who didn't understand the distinction appeared to be you. I think you owe her an apology but I know from watching people in action and I know you still don't get it and have no capacity to accept responsibility for lying about someone. That's fine. I hope that clears things up
8:57 a.m.
May 11, '10
Uh..no.
The problem is that Duyck is admitting to breaking the law and then attempting to justify it-and Cameron is just fine with that.
The discussion about immigration isn't a heady one, or at least it hasn't been with Cameron so far. And it's incredibly silly to beg that I apologize to her for calling her out on it.
And the idea that somehow breaking an ordinance isn't breaking a law...really? That's where you want to go? An ordinance is a statute enacted by a city or town and it is a law. The fact that Duyck would so casually admit to breaking it makes me wonder what other ordinances he'd so casually disregard should he become the Chair of Washington County Commission.
12:02 p.m.
May 11, '10
Once again, unless you are referring to something said to you privately nothing she said here publicly reads the way you characterize it Carla. Her theme appears to be the same as mine ..."so what" it's an ordinance its like a parking ticket." I admit to getting parking tickets too Carla so what? The other comments that if Duyck were a D you would have been an advocate for his signs the same way you are for the illegal immigrants who are destroying this country. An ordinance is a local baby law with no teeth, it's civil and the violator pays a small fine (parking tickets) to me a a law is at least a state wide rule. Your earlier posts clearly show you champion the presence of illegal immigrants in our state. Someone has put you under the ether and convinced you they pay their own way in taxes (how much income tax do minimum wage people pay Carla? - None) so here is the question for you: why are you so bent out of shape by Duyck's ordinance violation but have no problem with the people in this state who are breaking real laws?
I didn't beg you to do anything Carla you really need to get over yourself. Why can't you read and understand what is written? I didn't "beg" you to apologize I just said it was indicated because you mischaratcerized (badly) something she said. She said "follow the law" and you read "break any law you want" hello?? and Ron (below) if you don't think it's hypocritical how is it you are able to so easily spot the hypocrisy of the tea bagger? This is the type of non sensical thinking that has doomed the left back to the policitical trash heap again starting in november. The brain of the liberal just doesn't work right. When I realized I was a member of a party who could only identify hypocrisy and dishonesty in others I immediately became an independant. True to your "progressive" moniker I fully expect you to cancel my posting privileges as soon as this gets posted because Blue Oregon is not able to deal with anyone who has a different opinion than they do and like most people who have forgotten that free and open debate made this country great immediately do everything they can to silence that dissention. If it made this country great the progressive movement has a problem with it.
10:10 a.m.
May 11, '10
"Cameron thinks it's hypocritical to get worked up over duycks sign while 100k illegal aliens roam the state."
I used to love the rhetoric of false equivalence and the deflection of criticism with adolescent accusations of hypocrisy but I grew up. Although I still experience a momentary frisson whenever a rabid antigay demagogue gets caught on vacation with a rent boy, or a tea bagger holds up a sign that reads "Keep the Gubmint out of my Medicare", it doesn't add up to much. Life continues apace.
The game can be played like madlibs, fill in the blank: How can you be upset about _ when ____ is going on every day. In the end, it's just deflection.
8:35 p.m.
May 11, '10
You need to go back and look up the meaning of the term ‘fallacy of false equivalence”” Ron. The fallacy of false equivalence in this case would be you trying to equate Duycks oversized signs crime spree with 100k people living illegally in this state. It’s when a person tries to make his point by taking something inconsequential (sign crimes and misdemeanors) and equating it to something serious and heinous (the # of illegal aliens in this state) you have the concept down you just have the players in the wrong positions
8:55 p.m.
May 11, '10
You're correct, anonymouse, I was wrong. that is the correct definition of false equivalence. I'm trying to figure out what the name of the logical fallacy is for defending an action because it doesn't rise to the seriousness of another, unrelated, action. I suppose that is simply deflection.
What other inconsequential misdemeanors will you give Andy Duyck a pass on until the issue of immigration is solved, presumably to your liking?
8:42 p.m.
May 12, '10
its called having your priorities out of order
6:58 a.m.
May 12, '10
CJ: It would be, except that in the US we think that criminalizing everything is the answer. If they still aren't equivalent we up the penalty until they are.
12:24 a.m.
May 12, '10
You know, I'd be willing to give Andy the benefit of the doubt as to the constitutionality of the ordinance if his campaign weren't systematically littering Washington County roadways and right of ways with his conventionally sized yard signs as well. It makes him seem more a common scofflaw than a principled objector. It makes him seem as if he feels entitled to place his signs, regardless of their size, wherever he wishes.
I can't help but think that the Republican philosophy of political sign placement has something to do with the Right's hostility to the commons and their feelings of entitlement to exploit it.
3:51 p.m.
May 10, '10
There's a large Duyck on a privately-owned building right next to the westbound MAX track at Beaverton transit center (I assume, however, that the code applies only to freestanding signs).
Have seen many a Duyck sign around Beaverton- have not seen a single Schouten, however.
I hope this visual hemorrhage of Duyck serves to give yet another reason to oppose him.
3:58 p.m.
May 10, '10
Cameron wrote: "Question? Is this the same Duyck whose position in the legislature was eliminated when they re-drew the lines and he lived on the wrong side of the street? (I remember reading something about someone I think with that name?)"
Nope, different Duyck. A cousin, I believe. And you've got the details all out of whack. Jeff Duyck filed to run for Representative for House District 29. His filing was accepted, but then he was later found, on the basis of a citizen complaint, to reside on the wrong side of the district border, which cut across his property. His pasture was in HD 29 but his house was in HD 26. He had evidently historically voted in HD 29, and both he and the County were unaware of the glitch. He appealed, but lost.
8:00 p.m.
May 11, '10
Thank you! I knew I wasn't going crazy. :)
10:21 a.m.
May 12, '10
Andy Duyck is the same Duyck who ran for Representative in House District 30 in 2008, and who was convincingly thrashed by David Edwards. Then, like now, Duyck's campaign strategy consisted mainly of placing his signs all over the place and trying to convince voters that Edwards was out of step with his district. 57% of the district's voters disagreed with Andy.
4:01 p.m.
May 10, '10
What kind of a shlub would vote for a person because they happen to see a name on a sign, anyway? Or, is the whole idea to remind people to vote? Are there a lot of people who would forget to vote if they didn't see signs?
I hope there are very few people in all of these categories.
4:16 p.m.
May 10, '10
Working in marketing, you would be surprised.
4:42 p.m.
May 10, '10
Please don't tell you know who about the U.S. subsidized corn sold in Mexico that has displaced nearly 2 million Mexican farmworkers. And while we're at it we better not let her see all the stats that will confirm that brown people will out number white people by mid-century.
Carla I am with you on the improper size of signs.
7:29 p.m.
May 10, '10
This is definitely disturbing. He seems to be applying a real TEA mentality. The rot spreads.
9:33 p.m.
May 10, '10
I think at the point that a post gets 50+ comments, it's worth noting: Kurt doesn't work for free, and a subscription to the Argus costs $3.50 a month for Washington County residents.
To support this kind of journalism from Washington County's news leader, go to http://bit.ly/GetanArgus
1:46 p.m.
May 11, '10
Just another Republican worried about the size of his Duyck.
8:38 p.m.
May 11, '10
I thought that was at least one thing everyone could agree on ...large duycks=good?
6:55 a.m.
May 12, '10
Um...you guys realize that Duyck rhymes with "pike"...right?
LOL