|
| The opinions expressed here are those of the blogger and do not necessarily reflect the views of Local Liberty Online, The Limited Government Forum, our officers or our programs. We provide this space in keeping with our goal of serving as a true forum, where a variety of viewpoints can be freely and responsibly expressed. |
Your Turn
|
An idea and opinion exchange for the responsible use of LLO readers |
|
|
Involved
December 21, 2009
Sean, where is everyone? I submit thoughts, many contray to yours but receive no response. We have a population of 450,000 + or - and no one responds! I have to hand it to you, you keep on keeping on. Brother, I do not always agree with you but at least do the courtesy of responding. How do we wake this silent population up. Maybe we should think about a rag sheet which can be accessed at the same place that that People Magazine is offered. My pockets in that respect are thin but I have always wanted to "rant" in a printed form. Please, please, I know, that is poor journalism, but it seems that is all the masses understand. I am thankfull for your efforts even if you are wrong at times. tim [Read More]
|
|
|
|
To Sean
December 18, 2009
Sean, I consider you as a wise man, a person that someone like myself can listen to and learn from. You have countered my thoughts and my writings on this blog very effectively. I have always considered myself a dyed in the wool conservative. I registered as a Republican when I turned 21 and have only strayed once when I changed my affilliation to Independant, but came quickly back to the fold. But our dialog over the term "intent" has caused me to think more than I normally would. I want to thank you for that. I looked up "intent" in the dictionary and found a legal sense in which that term is used. And guess what? it is an open term when used in that respect. So when your friend and mine, Doug Bruce, publicly announced that his 300 amendment was to stop "Stormwater" his misuse of "hereafter" was nullified as he expressly announced publicly that his intent was to kill the stormwater fee and that is what the public voted for. So while his wording did not meet your standards his public admission met the standards of the average voter. Any way you personally play it, you lose. But the real reason I am writing is to tell you that you have awakened a side of me that I did not know exisited. That side is one of moderation and consideration. I am against abortion as a rule, but also understand that there are cases which demand a different approach. After all, when the Constitution of this Nation was written I don't suppose any of the writers had been exposed to what we expect today. But they did stipulate "freedom and liberty for all". There was a standing Army when the Constitution was written but they still included the right to bear arms. So when you play the liberal vs conservative supreme court judge with me I now chuckle. You know where I have decided to put my tent?, as a result of your writings, squarely in the moderate Republican camp. So I guess I am your liberal friend. You redundantly write about how you oppose the way the stormwater tax was imposed, but you then go on to express why it should be continued. You talk about SDS and folks being washed by a flood and the waste associated with that tax if all is stopped. What you do not address is that the people of Colorado Springs simply want to vote on tax issues. And because of your bullheaded attitude, the same attitude expressed by City Council, you label the average voter as some kind of unlearned person. But the truth is all we want is to vote and approve or diapprove an issue. It really is that simple, include us, the tax payer in the solution. If we say no, respect that. If we say yes, rejoice! But do not exclude us as has been the practice. Lionel and company believe, or believed they had a mandate to do what they felt best. When the heat was turned up, Heimlicher split. They do not have a mandate and neither do you. We the folks want to vote! If I were Doug Bruce I would be drafting a document to kill SDS. Why?, because no one has asked me if I want to shoulder the bill for the project. No one asked me if I thought making Colorado Springs Utilities an Enterprise vs a city owned facility was a good idea. All this was done with SDS in mind. But the bill payer was never considered or allowed to participate, not in the last twenty years I have been here. When I came here this was a city of 250,000 plus. It was a nice place. There was no open talk of SDS. The Banning Lewis Ranch was an after thought. Powers Blvd was a dark strech of road that was to be a ByPss. Today it is a major corridore created by development. Never once were we the citizens asked to give our opinion. Big bucks and City Council did their thing in the dark. If we did not have 4000 plus new homes a year we missed the mark. And then Pueblo began to sound off because the Fountain Creek was polluteing the Arkansas river. From there things began to go downhill. And yet our Council did nothing to improve the situation and the tax payers was expected to pay more and more. Never a vote, simply give it up! No more! You want our money, let us vote. Stop the end around of TABOR. To hell with development and with California investment. The money wasted by the stormwater fiasco is a drop in the bucket. Council has wasted 100 times that much. You want my support, earn it. tim [Read More]
|
|
|
|
Stop blathering and unite!
November 5, 2009
From what I have read and re-read, most of you folks are spitting into the wind. I sense that most of you are like me and sick and tired of "business as usual" in City Hall. First of all lets get one thing straight. From my perspective "Gotcha" as far as City Council is concerned, has been a long time coming. And you must admit that Council has worked long and hard to get zapped. Now that they have been zapped, it is up to folks like us and to bring an end to the mess we have allowed to happen by merely running our mouths on Blogs. There is a chance that Lionel and Larry will be recalled. I am not sure that is the best tact at this point but will endorse it should it come about. How about you? Secondly, we have three friends, it seems, on Council. They would be Mr. Paige, Mr. Glen and Mr. Gallager. The others are in the hands of developement and growth. Slamming Mr. Glen for doing nothing is stupid. If you had a majority voting against you, then you yourself would seem ineffective and holding on for dear life as you have been doing. Perhaps you remember the past Mayoral election when Mr. Glen announced his intention to run for Mayor. What happened? Lionel ended running unopposed. Why you ask? Because the Republican Party wanted no opposition to their candidate, especially when that person had a chance of winning. Mr. Glen has constantly and consistantly voted against screwing the taxpayer but was simply shouted down by the growth and development Council Members which was for the most part a solid block. Mr. Gallager also mixed it up with Council Members and on occasion mixed the pot by voting against growth and development. Mr. Paige has as a member of the Gazette Team and founder of LLO has without fail supported the view of the voting public, even if he felt it was the wrong thing to do. This crap about the voters will only elect folks in the hands of growth and development is just that. Crap! What do you think this past election was all about? Thirdly, this City is not bankrupt. A little short perhaps but not bankrupt. I would be willing to bet that were an AD Hoc contribution program put in place which asked all citizens to contribute for the welfare of this city and it's people, there would be funding for busses, parks, Cops and Fireman. Strict rules would have to be drawn up on how the funds are to be handled, collected, deposited and withdrawn. There is probably at least one bank in town which would love to have the opportunity to secure those funds. Volunteer lawyers would be needed to take care of the legal framework. Just think, for one moment if you are able, the folks of Colorado Springs voluntarily contributing to the furtherance of their city and being happy about it. In this senario, the city would be required to put the monies to use where stipulated in the legal documents. Zero to growth and development. Zero to Utilities and Enterprise. Zero to the "good old boys". Every dime to Parks, Recreation, Busses, Cops, Fire Department, Flowers, Snow Plows, Hospital and the like. But most importanly, screw development and growth. If water is needed forty years from now, let em dig a well! (Not really, but sounds good.) Think of it, taxes paid through contribution, not theft and cohersion. Now I am not so opptomistic to think all of our woes will be solved in such a manner, but we could make a serious dent and at the same time tame the impulse to Tax the Bastards! However, we could put new rules into play. I am done for now. I leave you with this. Our destiny is in our hands. Let the robbers and baron's regain the upper hand and we are toast. Think about that! Have a nice day. Tim Okey P.S. I am changing my Party affiliation from Republican to Independent. I am 70 years old. Who sez you can't teach an old dog new tricks? [Read More]
|
|
|
|
