Tuesday, February 05, 2013

The reeking stench of Tim "The Liar" Leave-it

We all know by now what a lying scumbag the sorry excuse for a mayor Tim "The Liar" Leave-it became: working for a CRC contractor, he's been working for them like the 13th Amendment was never passed... and, of course, this slimeball has been working against US in the process.

On Valentine's day, this worm is going to let us in on his secret: whether or not he's going to hold himself up as a pinata for re-election.

As someone who takes some satisfaction out of beating the hell out of the corrupt, dishonest scum in government, I sincerely hope that he does run.  As a lying, steaming pile of crap, a Leave-it campaign will be entertaining and for the blogosphere, face it:

It would be fun.

Now, there's a good chance that any candidate of reasonable intelligence (meaning anyone opposed to the CRC scam) would likely beat that lying shit bag like a rented mule.

But Vancouver's not the easiest place to figure out: after all, they've elected the worst legislator in the state (Yeah, that's Moeller) repeatedly, and he sells them out, going so far as to sue his own constituents in court.

It's obvious they'll vote for a liar when he tells them what they want to hear... instead of telling them the truth.  But then, it's to our lasting misfortune that someone so in the tank for the special interests leaching us all dry was ever elected in the first place.

Tim "The Liar" Leave-it truly does not give a damn what the people want when it interferes with his agenda.

Here's the article: remember, with a proven scumbag like Leave-it running the show, some of his comments after the article, where he takes others to task for supporting this effort simply defy belief and actually achieve new levels of the rankest hypocrisy.  You will note that while challenging OTHERS to "learn the facts, " that weasel ignores them himself, being a willing victim of the CRC rip off... and by so doing, victimizing us all.

it starts wuith the lie that the issue "could not be discussed because it wasn't on the agenda."

Of course it could.  Why lie about it?

But it "couldn't be discussed" when Mayor McCheese didn't WANT to "discuss" it.

And that's because he's sick of hearing it, and will do everything he can to stop a vote on this subject.

After all, we mustn't listen to the people, right?

Light rail fight fizzles at Vancouver council meeting

Topic could not be discussed since it was not on agenda

A valuable lesson was learned Monday: Before announcing a public fight with the Vancouver City Council, check the meeting agenda.
What was billed by light rail opponent Debbie Peterson as a "Clash of the Titans," turned out to be nothing on Monday, because it was not one of the twice-monthly meetings that concludes with a citizens' forum. During the forums, people can talk for three minutes about whatever they want.
The "citizen communications" portion of Monday's meeting, which was clearly defined on the agenda, was only for people who wanted to comment on items on the council's agenda.
What was on the agenda? Reappointments of hearings examiners, a street vacation and the first reading of an ordinance relating to animal control.
What wasn't on the agenda? The Columbia River Crossing or the failed petition that Peterson's group wants the council to accept.
Peterson and other light rail opponents worked for more than two years to gather enough signatures to petition the council for a public vote on light rail.
In April 2012, they were told their effort failed. But under the Vancouver city charter, they were given extra time to collect additional signatures.
Last month, they learned their petition fell 32 signatures short of the 5,472-signature requirement.
More than 8,000 signatures were tossed, including all those from people who signed the petition multiple times.
Voters would have decided on a proposed ordinance that would have prohibited any city resources from being used to extend TriMet's MAX line from Portland to Vancouver.
The Clark County Auditor's Office rejected duplicate signatures based on state law governing city petitions. It says "signatures, including the original, of any person who has signed a petition two or more times shall be stricken."
Petitioners argue that state law isn't valid because it's in conflict with a 1977 Washington Supreme Court decision that says the name should count once. But that ruling was in response to a different state law governing the state petition process.

There are times, briefly, that I wished I lived in the Leave-it Ghetto.

But then, my brain actually gets oxygen, and, well, I once again thank God I'm not.

Look at the lying tripe Leave-it spews in the Facebook comments after the article.

It's just a damned shame that tar and feathers ever went out of fashion.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Tim again isn't a hypocrite?

Ok, TELL ME... Why was the CRC Project update on monday's agenda in the workshop session?


Look at the date. Sorry, Tim. you were wrong for chastising Debbie this time.... -- Jeremy