I really do enjoy it (well, for the most part) when re-re's come by and dump a pile of feces on my doorstep in a burning bag, and "Mallory" was no exception:
I seek out disagreement here so I can school the ignorant, as Mallory so finely illustrates. So, never one to pass up an opportunity, let's get this show on the road, shall we?
"We?" Odd the use of the pluralis majestatis term "we," one typically used by royalty. You know, the "royal 'We?'"
Since royalty has been out of vogue here locally, one can only presume that this person (these people?) speak for some group.
And that's OK. Just a little weird.
Number of readers I have?
Rather irrelevant, isn't it? I've come to discover that it's not the size of the dog in the fight... it's much more the size of the fight in the dog... though in this instance, your number is rather off.
How this "piece of crap" came to you is equally irrelevant. Like the flame to the moth, you'll be back because, well, you'll be so impressed by how I defend my positions (which at some point, you finally got around to addressing) that you won't be able to help yourself.
As much as I appreciate your advice in all things underwear, I would suggest that this is no place for sewer humor. And a 4 bedroom split level has no basement.
Now then, having successfully cleared your moronic vitriol aside, we get to the issue at hand.
"A 'strong mayor' change would eliminate the high paid jobs of city manager...and other dept. managers, saving tax payers $$$."Bull.
Replacing one city manager with another doesn't save anyone a thing.
With a "strong mayor" form of government, there would be re-organization; but no one, least of all Tim "The Liar" Leavitt mentioned this to "save money."
The role of the "city manager" would immediately be assumed by the creation of an ADDITIONAL high dollar position of "Chief of Staff," a position Leavitt has ALREADY tried to create IN ADDITION to the city manager we already have. (He wanted that gig for his campaign manager... nice bit of incest, that.)
Contrary to "saving" money, Leavitt's plan would COST money, and a LOT of it.
Thus proving a., your ignorance generally and b., your ignorance about government specifically.
"Further. Leavitt has stated he would FIGHT TOLLS - "... no tolls..." How does that make him a "liar" goofy?""FIGHT TOLLS?" Here, let me explain it to you so simply that even you can understand it:
In an interview afterward, Leavitt said he intends to press the federal government to pick up the cost of the $3.2 billion project. "Tolls are still not on the table for me," he said.
When pressed to say whether he’d rule out supporting a new bridge if a toll became unavoidable, Leavitt indicated he wouldn’t go that far.
"I’m not an obstructionist," he said.
In the vernacular, this is known as attempting to have your cake and eat it as well.
There is no way... NO WAY, this thing will be built without tolls.
The Liar knows this.
And so, when tolls WILL BE IMPOSED, does that mean he will oppose the bridge?
Of course not. He's not, you see, an "obstructionist." This way, he can impress the uninformed (Like you, Mal) that at least he "tried," when, in fact, he did no such thing.
So, there you have it. He CLAIMS he opposes tolls, but won't do a damned thing about it when tolls are required.
There. Simple enough for you? Maybe a little less vodka in your kool aid?
As for how that makes him a "'liar' goofy," I'll leave that up to the individual reader.
As for "who I am," that's simple. Maybe you can find someone to read it to you over on the top of the left column of this blog?
Or, let me know. I can always draw you a picture.
.
Maybe Mallory doesn't realize that even the Columbian's editorial page today called out no need for a change to the mayor's position.
ReplyDeleteTo me, it's always telling when a Democrat can't even get the Columbian's editors to agree with them.
I just find it a sad commentary that a person has to have inside politics information in order to interpret what politicians are saying. A citizen should be able to believe what is said because it is clear and true. Truly sad....
ReplyDeleteKriss, that is why some of us are pushing back against the Party in order to run a candidate that will be up front with us.
ReplyDelete