I guess we now know the true motivation behind this sign policy. Scott Burnett couldn't have made it more obvious.
The real motivation here, based on Burnett's reaction, is that legislators don't like being criticized by the signs. As expected, this has nothing to do with the signs "obstructing views" or "being disruptive."
Mental Terrorism? Give me a break.
Scott, I expect an ex-con* like Tindall to make statements like that. But how can a guy like you who supports and receives support from the ACLU, come down on the "regulate the signs" side of this issue? It makes me want to make a very large sign that says: "Burnett = World's Largest Hypocrite."
I sincerely hope the ACLU is taking note here on who it should support in the next county election.
*Tindall, in his former capacity as chairman of the legislature, was convicted in 1998 for tax evasion related to bribes he accepted to steer county contracts to certain parties.
See: http://examiner.net/stories/111798/new_tindall.shtml
and
http://examiner.net/stories/012699/new_tindall.shtml
Tindall also testified before the legislature in March 2004, as the county discussed conducting an audit of the COMBAT funds. (See: http://examiner.net/stories/031604/new_031604017.shtml)
If you watch the tape of this meeting, you'll see legislators falling all over each other to praise Tindall for his years of wonderful service. That says a lot to me, and it should say a lot to every voter in the county.
You don't think Sander's and all his law enforcement buddies are going to try and pull off another jail construction debacle? Shield's and her friends walked away with a fortune.
Remember the costly architectural, construction and legal costs. I am sure that the drug tax money is really tempting them. Ah, but that would be fraud at the Federal level.
They were muggin each other and smiling as he was reading the thing looking all over the room for some one to wink at it was sick…
We need a new group there also…
Submitted by norwayfever on Wed, 2008-03-26 14:23.
Heavens, that was the stupidest thing to harass you Bob. They seem incompetent to me. They need to be watched they may try to harm you physically and not use good sense. If they are so upset about that sign, they could do anything. What time and day is this aired, I wouldn't mind watching it. I'm also glad the Examiner is covering this grave injustice which was done to you.
Beam me up Scotty, there is no Human life on this planet…
For those non treckies…
This is a very strange process that groups like this seem to go through.
They just can’t stop and say oh ok we screwed up sorry lets move on.
They just can’t do it.
Just like Hillary on TV the last few days.
She lied about being shot at, but she just can’t bring her self to admit it and move on.
Now she is disremembering what happened.
What happened is she lied.
I’ve seen this with Law enforcement over the years and they won’t stop until it escalates and some one gets hurt or fired, or voted out.
The real facts of the deal in St Louis, they had been given that guy a hard time for over 10 years.
NO EXCUSE for what he did, but they just wouldn’t leave him be…
I have a friend in SL and he’s on the PD there and he said most people thought the shooter was a pretty nice guy helped in the community etc…
So don’t expect these guys to act Human unless we make them.
The Legislature is supposed to be a "self-regulating body". With nine members the rules require a simple majority to approve any action. Five votes, that's all. Garza and Grounds will need to convince several others not to approve or modify the sign policy.
Rizzo tried to move the action out of committee last week, while Grounds, Chairman of the Rules committee, was absent. There was not even a resolution to forward to the Legislature, but that does not mean it was denied because there is no specific rule against it. It has been done before.
Jay Haden will first write one up and assign it a number. Then the Rules Committee can act on it. These committee actions are not on the internet and as a result the public is kept in the dark, until the action is voted upon by the Legislature.
The Legislature routinely votes on drafted resolutions before they appears on the printed agenda, called an "add-on". These can be approved unless someone objects. Frequently the legislator that would object, is "by design", absent from the meeting. They call this suspending the rules, but it really should be called "the shaft", because that is more descript of what happens to the public and the legislator that would not want the action to stand.
Submitted by norwayfever on Wed, 2008-03-26 14:30.
I would like to add, how are you feeling? Don't you know you have been victimized? You may need to take good care of yourself, put these mean people out of your mind. They are in the wrong and by making you the wrong doer is letting them continue to bully and victimized you more. You need to give them a copy of the 14th Amendment. It is very obvious this group of JCL do not like the light of truth shined on them.
Jackson County Legislator Scott Burnett called Bob WitbolsFeugens signs an act of "Metal Terrorism? However in the same news article he refers to the signs as "meaningless", "nothing to do with anything" and "has no idea what the sign could mean". So my question is...which is it terrorism or meaningless?
I'm sure that there are more important issues on The Jackson County Legislature Agenda than this "sign" issue. What are we in elementary school?
Interpretation of meaningless events into a scenario of personal threat is a trait exhibited by the mental state called Paranoia.
Formulating a series of unrelated events into a theory of conspiratorial motives is typical of persons whose break from reality is called Schizophrenia.
The transporter may have a malfunction, Scotty. Please report to sick bay.
True Colors
I guess we now know the true motivation behind this sign policy. Scott Burnett couldn't have made it more obvious.
The real motivation here, based on Burnett's reaction, is that legislators don't like being criticized by the signs. As expected, this has nothing to do with the signs "obstructing views" or "being disruptive."
Mental Terrorism? Give me a break.
Scott, I expect an ex-con* like Tindall to make statements like that. But how can a guy like you who supports and receives support from the ACLU, come down on the "regulate the signs" side of this issue? It makes me want to make a very large sign that says: "Burnett = World's Largest Hypocrite."
I sincerely hope the ACLU is taking note here on who it should support in the next county election.
*Tindall, in his former capacity as chairman of the legislature, was convicted in 1998 for tax evasion related to bribes he accepted to steer county contracts to certain parties.
See: http://examiner.net/stories/111798/new_tindall.shtml
and
http://examiner.net/stories/012699/new_tindall.shtml