Guitarzan (Darrell Lea)


Comment history

Group asks what will make planned 9th Street Corridor project a success

Good morning, Richard. Hope you're doing well. Haven't seen you around in a little while.

re: 9th Street traffic flow - traffic may be able to flow on the street, but it's a bumpy grindy path from Connecticut Street west to New Hampshire Street. The construction vehicles have pretty much mucked it up, and there's more still to be done. The actual street itself needs an infusion of capital.

re: property taxes, etc., do you know if those questions have been posed in these meetings, or to the city commission? I don't know myself. Would like to know their replies. I hope they read the LJWorld comments section.

March 24, 2015 at 7:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Free speech?

Fred, you're not my boss, nor the boss of this conversation. I'll say and do what I please on my own timetable, thank you. Aside from that, you have Ben Carson as your icon. Your credibility is nil.

I said what I believed and I believe what I said. Y'all can parse it and rewrite it to suit your delusions until the cows come home for all I care. Have a nice day.

March 13, 2015 at 2:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Free speech?

You would be wrong to do that.

March 13, 2015 at 1:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Free speech?

Kevin, I'm not a hypocrite. I'm also not obliged to answer every question asked of me in a public forum, particularly by someone who calls me a hypocrite for not participating in a conversation they way they would want me to.

Am stepping away from the computer now and having a real life for a while. Have a nice day.

March 13, 2015 at 9:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Free speech?

Is the University of Oklahoma a branch of the federal government? I think not. Does the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution govern how a university president disciplines his student customers? I think not, but if it does, then the fallout from such a conclusion would reach far and wide.

As far as your hypothetical questions regarding black fraternity members, they are meaningless until such an incident actually occurs. Rhetorically distracting, but meaningless.

March 13, 2015 at 8:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Free speech?

For reference, here is the actual text of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as referenced in paragraph four of the editorial.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

March 13, 2015 at 7:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Free speech?

With freedom comes responsibility. No government has jailed or imprisoned any of the bigoted, ignorant fraternity members for their raucous display of stupidity. They can scream and sing their racial epithets all the way to the bank if they like. However, the consequences of their actions might be that civil minded persons and institutions may not want to be around them or take their money in exchange for a diploma.

March 13, 2015 at 7:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Double Take: Senate bill stands in the way of education

Scott, I sincerely hope you're joking, but somehow I think you're not. Boko Haram, brother!

March 3, 2015 at 8:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Saturday Column: Congressional debates reflect lack of trust in Obama

Who's Bob? Bob's not here, man.

February 14, 2015 at 2:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )