May 22, 2013 |
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
Blue to Pink to Red. A dream.
you're a communist?
Yup, toe is apparently one of the Reds. I wonder if he's got his Little Red Book?
So, who wre these leaders? Can the staff writer name them? Then we can see how they differ. From what Lawtence has now.
The city commission has become a means for developers to obtain public money for private investments. Is it any wonder that this had led to candidates prostituting themselves toward these same interests?
Give a specific. Bet you can't
Please tell me what Mike Amyx's agenda is? Strike me that he has advocated for a sane approach to Lawrence goverance for 25 years. Seriously, what is his special-interest agenda?
The problem is Mike Amyx is the only one the rest are in someones pocket in one way are another.
You bet, a half time barbers wages is the quickest way to own most of Redbud lane and the other half block of rentals in this city.
So you really think he worked half time all his life and also if you work at it you can start out small and build as you go you don't just go out and buy things all at once like you imply.
Wow, you would think by reading this that Dolph, The Journal World, or this writer has been asleep all these years or that The Journal World just came into being a month or two back. There have always been some candidates running for office with the right intent. There also have been the well funded, special interest candidates. This election is no different than what has gone on in Lawrence for many years. For the size of this town it has a pretty impressive election machine. The only real difference between then and now is the influence of the special interest groups were kept more under wraps than they are now. Also information is much more available to those who will bother themselves to actually look into the candidates information.
Some candidates have an agenda of doing what's good for the community. Unfortunately, it's candidates whose agenda is the promotion of narrow special interests who have generally prevailed over the last several decades.
But name those who served tears ago, it should be simple or the editorial is worthless. Who were those who had no agenda?
What was Allan Levine's agenda?
What did he accomplish?
I just reread your post four times and I'm pretty sure you asked about agendas, not actual accomplishments.
The government that governs least, governs best.
So, you're an anarchist? Or maybe you just want full-out chaos? (you can't get less than zero, which by your definition, is the bestest government possible.)
You should know, Bozo, that politically, I reside in that muddled middle, where no label applies.
Suggesting that government which governs least governs best is hardly a "middle of the road" position.
And, yes, I get the reference to Jefferson.
A moderate, middle of the road position on government might be to "right size" it, which wouldn't mean the least amount of it, or the most, for that matter.
And bozo's right - if the least is the best, then zero government would be the best. You can't actually believe that.
What do you think Jefferson thought? (many quotes attributed to certain people cannot be definitively said to have been spoken by that person. I think this is one of them.) That said, clearly Jefferson didn't believe in no government. After all, he served in government at the highest level. You should know, Bozo should know, what I know and what I suspect Jefferson knew, and that is that the comment was not intended to taken literally.
I don't know.
But, he was clearly very intelligent and educated, and, as you said, was in government at a high level.
If you don't mean it, then maybe you could find a way of saying what you actually mean instead - saves us all some time.
Irony, sarcasm, innuendo and more are all accepted writing tools. Just as I knew Bozo's accusing me of being an anarchist wasn't real, so too should you have known my "quote" of Jefferson wasn't intended to be taken literally.
Is that why you paraphrased, not quoted, Thomas Paine?
Every candidate and commissioner has an agenda. Always have, always will. So, it's not whether there is an agenda. It's what that agenda is.
But the agenda of the typical commissioner over the last few decades has been the promotion of the narrow interests of the growth/sprawl industries. But they can't be honest about that, so in elections they instead throw out mindless platitudes that have nothing to do with how they'll actually vote once on the commission.
Who wrote the editorial? Which is it, 30 years or 40 years. A decade makes a difference
So what was decided 100 years ago with Mr. Losey? Did he get money from Lawtence? He got some from a Missouri town.
Whoever wrote this editorial doesn't have a clue. Forty years ago the city commission was even more dominated by chamber of commerce types than it is now, to such an extent, that in the seventies a group of left leaning folks put up a slate of their own candidates. I think it was called "The Citizen's Coalition," and included, among others, Muriel Paul. This occurred years before the Progressive Coalition put of a slate of candidates that included Boog Highberger, et al.
Of course, Lawrence was still a backwater and very conservative in the seventies, and none of the liberals were elected.
It's been politics as usual for years and years. The writer of this editorial is exceedingly naive if he or she thinks that special interest control of the U.S. political system, at all three levels--local, state and national--is a relatively new phenomenon
The letter clearly lacked specifics. Did Mr Losey get his money? Did John Stavros have special interests back him? Did John Stavros haveLAN and Lyn Zollner to deal with?
Thanks for the mention of Martin Roberts. There was a candidate who really did care and listen. And act.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·