Monday, January 25, 2010

Wingnuts going wild

From the Times-Call article:
Mayor wants to trim length of public speaking at meetings

The following comment just screams for a detailed response... so here it is...

First, I'd like to mention the point that this was a suggestion that was brought up at the retreat - a retreat is where councilmembers can brainstorm ideas and talk about ways to make the city and their jobs more efficient.
Looked all through the agenda and didn't see a word about making "the city and their jobs more efficient.  The agenda items were content oriented (with the exception of "team building." Any suggestion that the mayor not defend the Constitution (as he swore to) is a retarded suggestion - especially if it's coming from the mayor... what planet are you on?

I hardly think it appropriate for everyone to get bent out of shape by one member throwing out an idea for discussion.
"I'm the Mayor and it's up to me. I can set this up any way I want." Yep, that's "just one person" alright. The one with the gavel.

Of course you don't think it's 'appropriate' for your political opponents to be allowed to speak - ever. You and your reich-wing Lunatic Fringer pals have made that endlessly clear. Sorry, we're still in America the place that the soldiers you love to pretend to support fought and died for so we can have the Rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution. Your moronity is beyond belief.

But that being said, the public has PLENTY of times to speak - at first call Public Invited to be Heard, during the public discussion when items are being voted on and THEN a second call for PITBH.
And by second reading the item has almost always been decided and any substantial change has to be republished at expense to the city.  So you really mean that PITBH is nothing more than a smokescreen that makes the public think they have influence over city decisions, when it was never intended.  Time and time again the rabid right has denied that this is a democracy.  Instead they prefer to focus on "representative government".  Translation = once you guys elect me (however few or many), I get to do whatever I please.  Lovely! The PITBH segment of Council meetings has been treated with ultimate disrespect more than once - the last wingnut-controlled council hacked it down from five minutes to three and now this jackass imitation of a mayor thinks he's going to chop it down further? Not a prayer. You assholes always do this shit, get control then immediately try to change the rules. You want to see your mayor yanked out by a recall, keep this shit up. Please. You're making it easy.

Really is such a big deal to limit the first call to 30 minutes - then people can still speak when the topic they are concerned about is being voted on.
See above. Riddle me this batguano, would you be okay with this if the Progressive-controlled council had tried it to muzzle you? You know fucking well you would have been setting yourselves on fire and leaping off the City Hall building.

(deleted barking and yipping about unrelated shit that this commenter routinely drags into every comment because their position is so idiotically weak)

Better yet, why don't we institute a policy like the Times Call has with regard to Letters to the Editor - you can only have a letter appear once every couple of weeks, and this is a daily paper - what about limiting speakers to speaking once a month so the same yahoos can't get up every week and say the same thing over and over.
Oh yes, let's hold up that paragon of fairness the Times Call. How about we limit you barf-mongers to one comment per day on their stories? (hell, per article would be an improvement) As of this writing there are at least a dozen multiple-personalities running around with half a dozen anonymous 'nicknames' that the Times-Call admits they can't control. How would you like it if we showed up to PITBH wearing various adorable little costumes and signed up several times - one for each costume? Those 'yahoos' you're referring to are concerned citizens and you will not silence us no matter how hard you try.

Just repeating the same rhetoric every week doesn't make it true.
Reading this line I literally burst out laughing. Karen Benker Much? You spread lies about her non-stop for two years with the willing help of your pals at the Times-Call. You slime-molds did exactly that - lied endlessly - until your 14% of full-on fringers were all but barking for her blood. Please. Clearly you can't hear yourself or you'd have deleted that line rather than sound like a total fool.

Lastly, there are PLENTY of other opportunities for people to be heard - Coffee with Council, emailing the council members or even making an appointment to sit down and talk with one.
Right. If the mayor would ever answer ANY of my emails I'd DO THAT. But he's such a moral coward he won't even discuss the topic of civility with me. He'd rather just cut off anyone that doesn't agree and then hide behind a rulebook rather than stand up for the Constitution - as he swore to do. Worse yet, you bloviating clowns think you're going to prop up this pathetic little tin-plated dictator and pretend he's helping the city? Your hubris is only exceeded by your hypocrisy.

But the radicals who get up and speak each week want the spotlight. They want to be seen on Channel 3 and maybe get their name mentioned in the paper. They want to be a squeeky wheel in the hope that somebody will listen and do what they want to be done, no matter how ridiculous.
So, in other words, you're not hearing enough 'happyspeak' about your beloved new mayor. Well, let's not get him confused with the loudmouthed wingnuts that run numerous anonymous (and cowardly) websites - one of which the mayor's own wife has admitting knowing the operator. Or the stream of sockpuppets howling on the Times-Call's website. Oh no, those are real 'statesmen' in Longmont. Again, your hypocrisy is revolting. As for 'the radicals' wanting publicity, please, you're projecting again. There's only one massive ego in Longmont blowing his own horn so hard it's amazing his nuts haven't flown out of it and he's squarely in the Lunatic Fringe's camp.

I actually think some of them think they are unelected members of the council, and that the public is begging to hear their two-cents. Well guess what? You're not, and we don't. If the council didn't have to sit and listen to the same drivel every week, they could get more work done and get our economy rolling that much faster.
Some of them got votes. That alone means someone believed in them and felt they would be a good representative for them. Why the supporters of this wingnut-a-palooza council think it's a democracy when you ignore the citizens is a sign they're completely off their nut. Drivel? People have a Right to speak you twit. You don't like it, move back to Romania.

Last point - why is it such a radical idea to let council have a couple minutes to respond after PITBH?
Sigh.  Because it's PUBLIC INVITED TO BE HEARD you mental midget. Not 'Public invited to be insulted and argued with by a childish tyrant'.

I didn't get the impression that the need to respond is to try and shut someone up or counter their arguments,
Go watch the video of the mayor - that's exactly what he was trying to do - you'd think someone that's made so much money from 'smart decisions' would have the wits to read some history and realize how much Americans don't like being stepped on.

I got the impression that councilmembers should have an opportunity to answer questions that citizens bring up during the PITBH.
Again, you got that wrong. So much for your understanding of PITBH.

As it is, the council is not to respond, so when someone comes up with a question during their 3 minutes they either get no answer or have to wait until the break or until Council Comments to get an answer. Most people have left the meeting or turned off the tv by the time midnight rolls around and council gets to finally offer some answers. Wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest to let the council be helpful right after the questions are asked instead of never answering or answering 4+ hours later, when everyone has forgotten the original question? JMO
Longmonter, Longmont, CO, 1/25/2010 1:30 PM
Previous council members have instructed the appropriate staff member to answer the question on the council's behalf.  You're reaching so far for an argument, you'll soon be falling flat on your face.  Come to think of it, you already have.

If our illustrious mayor would bother to read his packet rather than dodge it like a bored fratboy, answered his emails or just DID HIS JOB he could answer them afterwards as intended.

If the public wants to talk for four days that's our right - it's our government and our town and our country. You're well-advised to keep that firmly in mind when you start trying to pass off this fascist idiocy as 'common sense' - because it's not. It's the first step down a road that leads to a real nightmare - and you'll have to go through me for one to get there.

No comments: