The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Not At My Table - Political Discussions => National & International Politics => Topic started by: Friendly Bear on September 21, 2007, 01:31:33 PM

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 21, 2007, 01:31:33 PM
Local Church leaders by their position are granted moral authority over their congregations.

How can Church Leaders remain abjectly silent when they know that a new sales tax to fund the Kaiser River Tax will reduce the disposable income of the Tulsa County's poorest and neediest, increasing the burden on the poor?

Are they merely hypocrites, with their clay feet planted firmly in the Arkansas River sandpiles??

Do they deserve to retain their mantle of Moral Authority because of their contemptible silence?

They should speak out.

Let them sermonize how it can be moral to take ever more disposable income from our poorest and neediest to line the pockets of immensely powerful local construction companies, bond underwriters, selected attorneys and architects, and connected cronies?

When will they speak out?

We are listening.....

Waiting..........

Waiting..........

Waiting..........

[:(]

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: rwarn17588 on September 21, 2007, 01:44:25 PM
Maybe it's because the churches are more concerned about frivolous things.

Like saving souls.

[}:)]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 21, 2007, 02:10:40 PM
What a stupid topic!

You expect advice from the pulpit on commercial development or tax issues?

What was the stance of your church on funding EMSA or a south Tulsa toll bridge? Does you God speak about sales tax holidays or TIF districts?

Oh, and the leaders of my church do not have "moral authority" over me. I look to them for positive examples and interpretation of moral values, not authority over me.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 21, 2007, 02:14:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588

Maybe it's because the churches are more concerned about frivolous things.

Like saving souls.

[}:)]



They definitely have their work cut out for them, saving lost souls in the Banana Republic of Tulsa.

Seem to recall a saying attributed to Jesus, paraphasing:  

A camel may more easily pass through the eye of a needle, than a rich man pass through the gates of heaven.

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 21, 2007, 02:26:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

What a stupid topic!

You expect advice from the pulpit on commercial development or tax issues?

What was the stance of your church on funding EMSA or a south Tulsa toll bridge? Does you God speak about sales tax holidays or TIF districts?

Oh, and the leaders of my church do not have "moral authority" over me. I look to them for positive examples and interpretation of moral values, not authority over me.



Well, if it's so stupid, why'd you bother to reply?  Duh.

And, there's that ANGER again RecycleM.  

E-A-S-Y.

Church leaders certainly do speak with Moral Authority over their congregations, and most likely speaking in general on religion and the meaning of morality which is integral to all major religions.  

Teaching how to leading a morale (pious)life is in their job description.

Ministers are ordained into their religion, after years of study, and after passing various tests to do so.

And, then they are selected by their Congregation as their Religious Leader.

They certainly can and should opine on the moral implications of a new regressive sales tax that will literally reduce the disposable income of Tulsa County's poorest and neediest citizens.

They certainly do not have to be an expert on TIF's or the INCOG River Master Plan to so opine.

They are experts on the teaching of Morality......

Or are they?

And what they do say, or do NOT say when an IMMORAL taking of the means of sustenance from Tulsa County's poorest and neediest citizens speaks volumes about hypocrisy.

There could well be a sermon on it this weekend.

Still listening...........

Waiting...................

Waiting...................

Waiting...................

[:(]



Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 21, 2007, 02:47:06 PM
I don't understand why you think I am angry.

Disdain, snarkiness, challenging...yes.
Anger...no.

There are just a few people that I really argue with...four different posters, a couple of ex-wifes/girlfriends, and a neighbor who keeps a collection of dishwashers in his backyard.

None of them really make me angry.

I just don't understand your need for religious direction on this issue. Do you go the the "Our Lady of the Holy Tax Shelter"?  Maybe you should have prayer meetings based on gasoline tax initiatives in Congress. I know, let's charge a small part of a penny tax on all coins in the offertory basket to fund public political campaigns.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: waterboy on September 21, 2007, 02:50:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

What a stupid topic!

You expect advice from the pulpit on commercial development or tax issues?

What was the stance of your church on funding EMSA or a south Tulsa toll bridge? Does you God speak about sales tax holidays or TIF districts?

Oh, and the leaders of my church do not have "moral authority" over me. I look to them for positive examples and interpretation of moral values, not authority over me.



Well, if it's so stupid, why'd you bother to reply?  Duh.

And, there's that ANGER again RecycleM.  

E-A-S-Y.

Church leaders certainly do speak with Moral Authority over their congregations, and most likely speaking in general on religion and the meaning of morality which is integral to all major religions.  

Teaching how to leading a morale (pious)life is in their job description.

Ministers are ordained into their religion, after years of study, and after passing various tests to do so.

And, then they are selected by their Congregation as their Religious Leader.

They certainly can and should opine on the moral implications of a new regressive sales tax that will literally reduce the disposable income of Tulsa County's poorest and neediest citizens.

They certainly do not have to be an expert on TIF's or the INCOG River Master Plan to so opine.

They are experts on the teaching of Morality......

Or are they?

And what they do say, or do NOT say when an IMMORAL taking of the means of sustenance from Tulsa County's poorest and neediest citizens speaks volumes about hypocrisy.

There could well be a sermon on it this weekend.

Still listening...........

Waiting...................

Waiting...................

Waiting...................

[:(]







So we're screwed either way. If we respond then it validates you and your asinine assertions. If we don't then your statements pass as unassailable fact which they never are. I think your just lonely and crave the attention with such weak arguments as churches responding to tax issues. Wait a minute...didn't Jesus throw the tax collectors out? YOU want them back in arguing for equal time.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: swake on September 21, 2007, 02:55:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

What a stupid topic!

You expect advice from the pulpit on commercial development or tax issues?

What was the stance of your church on funding EMSA or a south Tulsa toll bridge? Does you God speak about sales tax holidays or TIF districts?

Oh, and the leaders of my church do not have "moral authority" over me. I look to them for positive examples and interpretation of moral values, not authority over me.



Well, if it's so stupid, why'd you bother to reply?  Duh.

And, there's that ANGER again RecycleM.  

E-A-S-Y.

Church leaders certainly do speak with Moral Authority over their congregations, and most likely speaking in general on religion and the meaning of morality which is integral to all major religions.  

Teaching how to leading a morale (pious)life is in their job description.

Ministers are ordained into their religion, after years of study, and after passing various tests to do so.

And, then they are selected by their Congregation as their Religious Leader.

They certainly can and should opine on the moral implications of a new regressive sales tax that will literally reduce the disposable income of Tulsa County's poorest and neediest citizens.

They certainly do not have to be an expert on TIF's or the INCOG River Master Plan to so opine.

They are experts on the teaching of Morality......

Or are they?

And what they do say, or do NOT say when an IMMORAL taking of the means of sustenance from Tulsa County's poorest and neediest citizens speaks volumes about hypocrisy.

There could well be a sermon on it this weekend.

Still listening...........

Waiting...................

Waiting...................

Waiting...................

[:(]







So we're screwed either way. If we respond then it validates you and your asinine assertions. If we don't then your statements pass as unassailable fact which they never are. I think your just lonely and crave the attention with such weak arguments as churches responding to tax issues. Wait a minute...didn't Jesus throw the tax collectors out? YOU want them back in arguing for equal time.



Jesus hates Bears
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 21, 2007, 03:11:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

What a stupid topic!

You expect advice from the pulpit on commercial development or tax issues?

What was the stance of your church on funding EMSA or a south Tulsa toll bridge? Does you God speak about sales tax holidays or TIF districts?

Oh, and the leaders of my church do not have "moral authority" over me. I look to them for positive examples and interpretation of moral values, not authority over me.



Well, if it's so stupid, why'd you bother to reply?  Duh.

And, there's that ANGER again RecycleM.  

E-A-S-Y.

Church leaders certainly do speak with Moral Authority over their congregations, and most likely speaking in general on religion and the meaning of morality which is integral to all major religions.  

Teaching how to leading a morale (pious)life is in their job description.

Ministers are ordained into their religion, after years of study, and after passing various tests to do so.

And, then they are selected by their Congregation as their Religious Leader.

They certainly can and should opine on the moral implications of a new regressive sales tax that will literally reduce the disposable income of Tulsa County's poorest and neediest citizens.

They certainly do not have to be an expert on TIF's or the INCOG River Master Plan to so opine.

They are experts on the teaching of Morality......

Or are they?

And what they do say, or do NOT say when an IMMORAL taking of the means of sustenance from Tulsa County's poorest and neediest citizens speaks volumes about hypocrisy.

There could well be a sermon on it this weekend.

Still listening...........

Waiting...................

Waiting...................

Waiting...................

[:(]







So we're screwed either way. If we respond then it validates you and your asinine assertions. If we don't then your statements pass as unassailable fact which they never are. I think your just lonely and crave the attention with such weak arguments as churches responding to tax issues. Wait a minute...didn't Jesus throw the tax collectors out? YOU want them back in arguing for equal time.



Actually, I'm waiting for Richard Roberts, Billy Joe Daugherty, Dr. Mouzon Biggs, Deron Spoo, or any of the host of prominent and respected local religious leaders to SPEAK OUT as to how taking more sales tax money from the pockets of struggling poor people CAN be a moral act.
 
Waiting.............
Waiting..........
Waiting.......

FYI, Jesus threw the MONEY CHANGERS from the Temple, not the Roman Tax Collectors.  Changing common Roman coins for less common Jewish coins, for offerings IN the Temple, was their religious practice.  For a fee.  

Maybe Mr. Kaiser's family got their banking start there outside the Temple?

Saul was the Tax Collector for the Romans (River Tax Collector?), who had the religious epiphany on the Road to Damascus, and became Paul.

Thus Saith the Friendly Bear.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 21, 2007, 03:17:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by swake

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

What a stupid topic!

You expect advice from the pulpit on commercial development or tax issues?

What was the stance of your church on funding EMSA or a south Tulsa toll bridge? Does you God speak about sales tax holidays or TIF districts?

Oh, and the leaders of my church do not have "moral authority" over me. I look to them for positive examples and interpretation of moral values, not authority over me.



Well, if it's so stupid, why'd you bother to reply?  Duh.

And, there's that ANGER again RecycleM.  

E-A-S-Y.

Church leaders certainly do speak with Moral Authority over their congregations, and most likely speaking in general on religion and the meaning of morality which is integral to all major religions.  

Teaching how to leading a morale (pious)life is in their job description.

Ministers are ordained into their religion, after years of study, and after passing various tests to do so.

And, then they are selected by their Congregation as their Religious Leader.

They certainly can and should opine on the moral implications of a new regressive sales tax that will literally reduce the disposable income of Tulsa County's poorest and neediest citizens.

They certainly do not have to be an expert on TIF's or the INCOG River Master Plan to so opine.

They are experts on the teaching of Morality......

Or are they?

And what they do say, or do NOT say when an IMMORAL taking of the means of sustenance from Tulsa County's poorest and neediest citizens speaks volumes about hypocrisy.

There could well be a sermon on it this weekend.

Still listening...........

Waiting...................

Waiting...................

Waiting...................

[:(]







So we're screwed either way. If we respond then it validates you and your asinine assertions. If we don't then your statements pass as unassailable fact which they never are. I think your just lonely and crave the attention with such weak arguments as churches responding to tax issues. Wait a minute...didn't Jesus throw the tax collectors out? YOU want them back in arguing for equal time.



Jesus hates Bears



Jesus is Love.

Swake is Love of: Taxes.

Friendly Bear Loves Tulsa.

[;)]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: shadows on September 21, 2007, 04:19:29 PM
I thought that Luke writing in the Acts describes Paul as a maker of tents.  

I always thought that Matthew was a Roman tax collector.

That at the age of 12 Jesus entered the temple to stop the exchange of the coins from the Jewish coins to Roman coins because Rome was in control of the Jewish nation and the coins were weak like our dollar..

Course I am just as confused as to where all the local tax money is spent and think that a 12 year old could go through city hall and straiten it out.  
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Townsend on September 21, 2007, 04:49:26 PM
A buddy of mine took a course online and he's a licensed minister.  I can ask him for you.  He's pretty smart.

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 21, 2007, 07:15:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by shadows

I thought that Luke writing in the Acts describes Paul as a maker of tents.  

I always thought that Matthew was a Roman tax collector.

That at the age of 12 Jesus entered the temple to stop the exchange of the coins from the Jewish coins to Roman coins because Rome was in control of the Jewish nation and the coins were weak like our dollar..

Course I am just as confused as to where all the local tax money is spent and think that a 12 year old could go through city hall and straiten it out.  




Correction noted.

Paul the Apostle was a maker of tents.

Matthew the Disciple was the Roman Tax Collector.

However, the observant Jews entering their Temple did not want to use the Roman coins bearing as they did Pagan images.

So, they exchanged their Roman Coins outside the Temple for Jewish coinage.

Hence, the Moneychangers outside the Temple, charging a so reasonable fee in foreign exchange.

Is that where the Kaiser Family banking fortune began - as Moneychangers??  

Billions and Billions.......



Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Rico on September 21, 2007, 07:18:01 PM
Pssssst.... Bear, a church is a non profit organization...

Exempt from "tax"...


Bear.... you could start the "Church of the Friendly Bear"... Think about it.

No More Taxes!

[}:)]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 21, 2007, 07:26:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Rico

Pssssst.... Bear, a church is a non profit organization...

Exempt from "tax"...

(//images/speech/icon_speech_wow.gif)
Bear.... you could start the "Church of the Friendly Bear"... Think about it.

No More Taxes!

[}:)]



There certainly would be some definite tax advantages to founding a tax-exempt Church.  

Mr. Ballard and his Church of Scientoloyg are prominently recalled.

Actually, I'm going to start a 501(c)(3)Tax Exempt foundation.  

The name will be:  

The Tulsa Tax Me More Club

I will solicit donations from all residents of Tulsa County who believe their taxes are TOO LOW.

I'm sure the money will just flood in from RecycleMichael, Waterboy, Sgrizzle, Average Joe, Chicken Little, Swake, Townsend, and a host of other TulsaNow MetroEchoChamberPot Kool-Aid drinkers.

Probably Bob & Roxanne Lorton, the Rooneys, the Flints, Schusterman, the Warrens, the LaFortunates, and Chester the Jester Cadieux will probably also want to contribute heavily.

And the George Kaiser Foundation, of course.

They don't seem to think we're taxed enough...

We'll make hundreds of dollars.

[}:)]

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: TheArtist on September 21, 2007, 07:37:48 PM
Your perfectly able to move some place where the taxes are lower and life is better.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 21, 2007, 08:29:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist

Your perfectly able to move some place where the taxes are lower and life is better.



I'm needed here.  The Oppressed and Exploited citizens of the Banana Republic of Tulsa need help.  

My heart, guts and grit are hereby applied to thwarting the harmful domination of the ruling Oligarch Familias.

I think Tulsa can actually be recovered from its long-term, nose-dive to financial ruin accompanied by ruinous taxation lining the pocket of the controlling Oligarch Families and their connected cronies.

Just follow the dots................

First, we have to drive a wooden stake through the hearts of the Tax Vampires.

Second, take back our local Goobermint with a true reformer, not a False Reformer like former Mayor Major MisFortune, or Non-Reformer Chatty Kathy Taylor.

Third, kill all the lawyers.

Fourth, never mind about Third.  That was William Shakepeare's idea.  Wouldn't work here; too many lawyers, not enough rope.

We had a brief few months of transparency in our local City Government when the Gang of 4.5 was elected to the City Council:

Turner, Henderson, Mautino, Medlock and Sam "Benedict Arnold" Roop.  

A short period of daylight and transparency ensued, but which Republican Mayor Bill MisFortune stridently resisted all REFORM actions of the Gang of 4.5, on behalf of his Masters.  

The Gang was outing all kinds of Favors-Trading, insider sweetheart dealing, like:

$200K "lobbying" contracts with Margeret Erling-Frette.

$360K "Lobbying" contracts with Friends of Bill MisFortune.

Sweetheart 40-year water contracts with Bixby and Owasso.

Great Plains Airlines fiasco and investigation.

And on and on and on.

With a slim majority arrayed against the long-entrenched privileged elite power structure, the local elite power establishment used sniper rifle accuracy to pick off the weak link in the Gang of 4.5, an out of work WilTel employee who needed a job, and was seduced to change sides by Mayor MisFortune.  

A $90K City job was invented for Mr. Roop, and in the subsequent special election to fill his open city councilor position, all the stops were pulled out to finance a slime-o campaign to elect one of their own, Bill Martinet, with the help of political consultant and mercenary-for-hire Jim Burdge.

Sam the Sham is gone now, along with Mayor MisFortune swept into the dustbin of Tulsa Political History, another popular politician whose Moral Authority was quickly eroded by serial lies uttered on behalf of the benefit of the local Ruling Oligarchy.

But, there will be another day.

Maybe the mysterious Hand of God will finally help the oppressed and exploited citizens of the:

Banana Republic of Tulsa.

This Topic being a Summons for Church Leaders to Opine on the Moral Impact of the Kaiser River Tax,

Let us Pray.  

Dear Lord, give us strength to resist the Oppressors and Exploiters of our fellow Tulsans. Give us Strength to face the Truth.

In your name we pray, Oh Lord, Amen.



[:O]

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: TURobY on September 22, 2007, 10:13:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
I'm needed here.  The Oppressed and Exploited citizens of the Banana Republic of Tulsa need help.  



I feel neither oppressed nor exploited. You're assistance is no longer needed here. [:X]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Breadburner on September 22, 2007, 10:20:16 AM
Why did you leave out Kenneth Hagin.......[:D]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: waterboy on September 22, 2007, 10:38:41 AM
Bye, bye miss American Pie...
Drove my chevy to the levee but the levee was dry...
Them good 'ol boys was drinkin whiskey and rye...
Singin' this will be the day that I die....

Sounds like your song Bear. Full of hidden messages, symbolic references with mostly entertainment value.[8D]

Perversely, i enjoy a man with a mission and passion to execute it, even if I disagree with them.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: joiei on September 22, 2007, 06:20:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

What a stupid topic!

You expect advice from the pulpit on commercial development or tax issues?

What was the stance of your church on funding EMSA or a south Tulsa toll bridge? Does you God speak about sales tax holidays or TIF districts?

Oh, and the leaders of my church do not have "moral authority" over me. I look to them for positive examples and interpretation of moral values, not authority over me.



Well, if it's so stupid, why'd you bother to reply?  Duh.

And, there's that ANGER again RecycleM.  

E-A-S-Y.

Church leaders certainly do speak with Moral Authority over their congregations, and most likely speaking in general on religion and the meaning of morality which is integral to all major religions.  

Teaching how to leading a morale (pious)life is in their job description.

Ministers are ordained into their religion, after years of study, and after passing various tests to do so.

And, then they are selected by their Congregation as their Religious Leader.

They certainly can and should opine on the moral implications of a new regressive sales tax that will literally reduce the disposable income of Tulsa County's poorest and neediest citizens.

They certainly do not have to be an expert on TIF's or the INCOG River Master Plan to so opine.

They are experts on the teaching of Morality......

Or are they?

And what they do say, or do NOT say when an IMMORAL taking of the means of sustenance from Tulsa County's poorest and neediest citizens speaks volumes about hypocrisy.

There could well be a sermon on it this weekend.

Still listening...........

Waiting...................

Waiting...................

Waiting...................

[:(]







So we're screwed either way. If we respond then it validates you and your asinine assertions. If we don't then your statements pass as unassailable fact which they never are. I think your just lonely and crave the attention with such weak arguments as churches responding to tax issues. Wait a minute...didn't Jesus throw the tax collectors out? YOU want them back in arguing for equal time.



Actually, I'm waiting for Richard Roberts, Billy Joe Daugherty, Dr. Mouzon Biggs, Deron Spoo, or any of the host of prominent and respected local religious leaders to SPEAK OUT as to how taking more sales tax money from the pockets of struggling poor people CAN be a moral act.
 
Waiting.............
Waiting..........
Waiting.......

FYI, Jesus threw the MONEY CHANGERS from the Temple, not the Roman Tax Collectors.  Changing common Roman coins for less common Jewish coins, for offerings IN the Temple, was their religious practice.  For a fee.  

Maybe Mr. Kaiser's family got their banking start there outside the Temple?

Saul was the Tax Collector for the Romans (River Tax Collector?), who had the religious epiphany on the Road to Damascus, and became Paul.

Thus Saith the Friendly Bear.


Could be your waiting for Godot!!!!
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Steve on September 22, 2007, 07:50:38 PM
Church pastors/leaders have absolutely no business commenting on political matters or taxation issues.  Church leaders should be silent on all political matters, the recent river tax vote included.  Church pastors should concern themselves with matters of religious faith, and leave secular issues such as tax votes to the general populace.  If not, then churches should forfeit their tax-exempt status if they are going to get involved in political/tax issues.


Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 22, 2007, 08:19:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Steve

Church pastors/leaders have absolutely no business commenting on political matters or taxation issues.  Church leaders should be silent on all political matters, the recent river tax vote included.  Church pastors should concern themselves with matters of religious faith, and leave secular issues such as tax votes to the general populace.  If not, then churches should forfeit their tax-exempt status if they are going to get involved in political/tax issues.






Well, there's Political Campaigns which the IRS forbids endorsement by Churches of candidates, and then there are NON-PARTISAN elections such as ballot issues to change the State Constitution, or NON-PARTISAN ballot issues like the Kaiser River Tax, which are not governed by IRS guidelines.  How HANDY!

Non-Partisan ballot issues are treated totally differently than candidate elections in that there are NO LIMITS on what a contributor can provide to advocate their position.  

NO LIMITS.

For instance, in all likelihood, the Vote YES Tax Vampires will spend and raise over $1,000,000 to promote the Kaiser River Tax.

They are spendings big dollars on direct mail, TV and radio spots, polling, and phone solicitors.  

The Grass Roots NO RIVER TAX Dis-organization has a few No River Tax Signs.

Hardly a FAIR COMPETITION.

But, our ruling power Oligarchy in the Banana Republic of Tulsa Likes:  

They like things just the way they are...........

A $1M investment to yield $100,000,000's to the favored local heavy Construction Companies, their Connected Cronies, certain favored attorneys and accountants, and a select group of bond underwriters, another $282 million in taxes.

Certainly, a local pastor, priest, rabbi, or holy man should opine on the Morality of taking additional disposable income from Tulsa County's poorest and neediest citizens to move sand around in a prairie river.

It's definitely a MORAL issue.

Our holy men could legally sermonize tomorrow.

We'll see if they take a moral stand between now and Oct. 9th, or else melt under the heat of the moneyed ruling Oligarchy power play, showing their certified feet of clay.

Their here-to-for feckless moral infirmity makes one want to become a Heathen.

[:O]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 22, 2007, 08:39:45 PM
Let us know what your pastor/rabbi/minister says tomorrow.

Do they preach politics before the snake handling or after?
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 22, 2007, 08:44:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

Let us know what your pastor/rabbi/minister says tomorrow.

Do they preach politics before the snake handling or after?



It depends on the temperature that the cold-blooded reptile has been refrigerated at.

Swake for instance needs a 40 degree ambient temperature to handle.

Recycle on the other hand is dangerous at any temperature, liable to strike violently with venomously poisoned fangs at the slightes provocation.

C-A-R-E-F-U-L.

Such ANGER in one of God's Creatures.

Practice Love.  

Practice Peace.  

Practice Love of Your Fellow Man.

Vote NO October 9, For the Children!  
[B)]

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: TURobY on September 22, 2007, 09:00:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
The Grass Roots NO RIVER TAX Dis-organization has a few No River Tax Signs.



Too bad that they are all in the public right-of-way. LOL [}:)]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 23, 2007, 04:23:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY

quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
The Grass Roots NO RIVER TAX Dis-organization has a few No River Tax Signs.



Too bad that they are all in the public right-of-way. LOL [}:)]



Well, the Vote No Supporters ARE THE PUBLIC.

[:P]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: joiei on September 23, 2007, 05:01:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

Let us know what your pastor/rabbi/minister says tomorrow.

Do they preach politics before the snake handling or after?


Plus, what will you do if they say something you do not like?  What if they believe in the river vote?  What if your on the wrong side morally?
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 23, 2007, 06:59:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joiei

quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

Let us know what your pastor/rabbi/minister says tomorrow.

Do they preach politics before the snake handling or after?


Plus, what will you do if they say something you do not like?  What if they believe in the river vote?  What if your on the wrong side morally?



That's a lot of What If's.

I know that unless they are total hypocrites, that they CANNOT say making the impoverished of Tulsa County MORE impoverished by raising the prices that they pay through a NEW FRIVILOUS TAX is a moral act.  

Tulsa's poor will pay more on every sack of groceries, every stitch of clothes for their children, every kilowatt hour of electricity, every cable TV bill, and every whiff of natural gas this winter, to move sand around in the Arkansas River.

That I suspect is why there is such a deafening silence from our local clergy.

[:O]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 23, 2007, 08:00:14 PM
So...Bear...

What did your preacher say this Sunday morning about the proposed river improvement tax?

The closest my preacher got to discussing the issue was talking about Jesus changing water into wine. I don't think that was about the Arkansas River, but you have to admit it would make it quite a tourist attraction.

And Bear...don't call people hypocrites unless you want the tag yourself. You speak of peace and love, but have an avatar of a man running away from a bear attack.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 24, 2007, 07:18:14 AM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

So...Bear...

What did your preacher say this Sunday morning about the proposed river improvement tax?

The closest my preacher got to discussing the issue was talking about Jesus changing water into wine. I don't think that was about the Arkansas River, but you have to admit it would make it quite a tourist attraction.

And Bear...don't call people hypocrites unless you want the tag yourself. You speak of peace and love, but have an avatar of a man running away from a bear attack.



I'm crestfallen.  Even my Avatar raises your ire.

I'm not worthy.....

But, I'm no Hypocrite.

[}:)]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: sgrizzle on September 24, 2007, 07:58:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by TURobY

quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
The Grass Roots NO RIVER TAX Dis-organization has a few No River Tax Signs.



Too bad that they are all in the public right-of-way. LOL [}:)]



Well, the Vote No Supporters ARE THE PUBLIC.

[:P]



I noticed the above too. Vote Yes signs in yards (some people even have two) and the vote no signs are mainly in the public ROW illegally. Makes me wonder if the signs that were "stolen" were just picked up as code violations...
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 24, 2007, 09:10:35 AM
What would Jesus do (about the river)?[;)]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 24, 2007, 09:10:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by TURobY

quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
The Grass Roots NO RIVER TAX Dis-organization has a few No River Tax Signs.



Too bad that they are all in the public right-of-way. LOL [}:)]



Well, the Vote No Supporters ARE THE PUBLIC.

[:P]



I noticed the above too. Vote Yes signs in yards (some people even have two) and the vote no signs are mainly in the public ROW illegally. Makes me wonder if the signs that were "stolen" were just picked up as code violations...



The No Tulsa River Tax website seems to indicate that they are being taken from peoples yards.

The low-life Tote-the-Note EastSide Used Car Dealer, by offering a $5.00 bounty on Vote No signs, is probably violating the Constitutional Free Speech rights of the Vote No supporters.

Reason being:  

By offering a cash "bounty" on the sign, he is encouraging people to steal signs from people's yards, effectively stiffling the right of Free Expression.

Mr. Used Car Dealer has absolutely no way of knowing the Provenance of a sign for which he is paying a bounty.

Does anyone not believe that the Kaiser River Tax organization is secretly funding his Sign Bounty campaign?

I wish a sharp civil rights attorney would sue this worthless pile of excrement into well-deserved oblivion.

[:(!]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: waterboy on September 24, 2007, 09:16:17 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by TURobY

quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
The Grass Roots NO RIVER TAX Dis-organization has a few No River Tax Signs.



Too bad that they are all in the public right-of-way. LOL [}:)]



Well, the Vote No Supporters ARE THE PUBLIC.

[:P]



I noticed the above too. Vote Yes signs in yards (some people even have two) and the vote no signs are mainly in the public ROW illegally. Makes me wonder if the signs that were "stolen" were just picked up as code violations...



The No Tulsa River Tax website seems to indicate that they are being taken from peoples yards.

The low-life Tote-the-Note EastSide Used Car Dealer, by offering a $5.00 bounty on Vote No signs, is probably violating the Constitutional Free Speech rights of the Vote No supporters.

Reason being:  

By offering a cash "bounty" on the sign, he is encouraging people to steal signs from people's yards, effectively stiffling the right of Free Expression.

Mr. Used Car Dealer has absolutely no way of knowing the Provenance of a sign for which he is paying a bounty.

Does anyone not believe that the Kaiser River Tax organization is secretly funding his Sign Bounty campaign?

I wish a sharp civil rights attorney would sue this worthless pile of excrement into well-deserved oblivion.

[:(!]



You can prove he knowingly accepted and paid for illegally removed signs? If so get your civil rights lawyer and go to town. I would advise him to get one to and go after you for libeling him.

When overzealous supporters of my business once put push in signs on Jenks public right of way, I was called by angry Jenks officials who threatened me. I had no idea when I printed the signs that they would be illegally placed and told him so. Don't even know who put them in. I guess you would suspend that archaic principle of innocent till proven guilty?
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 24, 2007, 09:19:21 AM
The homes in my neighborhood have a pretty even mix of yes and no signs and they are all legal. I go to the neighborhood meetings and have educated our group on the proper rules.

There was a yes sign across the street from me that was run over on Saturday night, but I haven't seen any other sign war examples.

On Sunday, I drove an area from 31st street to 71st street and Memorial to the river. I saw illegal vote no signs stuck on almost every corner of every intersection. There were no other signs...no roofing signs, no buy your house signs, no tree trimming or tanning signs. Just illegal vote no signs.

The right to vote no does not give you the right to break the law and make our city ugly.

Who will step up and be the responsible party in the vote no crowd? Surely someone in that campaign cares about following the law.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 24, 2007, 09:21:47 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

What would Jesus do (about the river)?[;)]



The way the Kaiser River Tax campaign is stooping to using Children in its emotional appealing advertisements, I would not be surprised if they next fronted a local Holy Man to opine that Jesus would support the River Tax.  

Is Rabbi Sherman busy this week?

Based on what's in the New Testament, I would surmise:

Jesus would not conduct Baptisms in the River due to unsanitary nature. But at least those insisting to be so annointed would be Baptised before they died of severe intestinal malady on their way to Heaven.

He wouldn't use it as a source of fish to feed the multitudes.  Not recommended for a long, healthy life due to their accumulation of heavy metals in their tissues.

He might change the Water into Wine.  What a unique vintage!

He might walk on it.

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 24, 2007, 09:38:50 AM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

The homes in my neighborhood have a pretty even mix of yes and no signs and they are all legal. I go to the neighborhood meetings and have educated our group on the proper rules.

There was a yes sign across the street from me that was run over on Saturday night, but I haven't seen any other sign war examples.

On Sunday, I drove an area from 31st street to 71st street and Memorial to the river. I saw illegal vote no signs stuck on almost every corner of every intersection. There were no other signs...no roofing signs, no buy your house signs, no tree trimming or tanning signs. Just illegal vote no signs.

The right to vote no does not give you the right to break the law and make our city ugly.

Who will step up and be the responsible party in the vote no crowd? Surely someone in that campaign cares about following the law.



Mr. Recyle:  You're getting us Off Topic.  This topic is about the morality of the Kaiser River Tax, and the notable silence of our local religious leaders.

Final Jeopardy Answer on your off-topic post:

Best you ask the Sign Man.  Sign, Sign, everywhere a sign.

If I have to say it a million times, the local city ordinance is patently Unconstitutional Abridgement of Free Speech rights.

Mayor Savage doing the bidding of her Puppet Masters got the ordinance passed.  After her Tulsa Project Arena Tax failed 59% - 41%, the ordinance got passed.

Local Ruling Oligarchy Thought Control Measure #101.  

It's one small part of the local Controlling Power Oligarchy's method to stifle free speech and maintain total control.

They don't want ANY dissenting opinion. None. Zero.

They like things just the way they are.  

They own the only local mass circulation daily news paper.  Anyone unclear of the Lorton's World position on the Kaiser River Tax?

They are spending $10,000's, possibly $100,000 in ads on the local TV stations.  Even when the local stations mention any dissenting opinion on the Kaiser River Tax, it is ALWAYS framed with a Vote YES opinion book-ending each side of the VOTE NO coverage.

There is no real free Speech tolerated in:

The BANANA REPUBLIC OF TULSA

Anyone who has lived in Tulsa for even a few years realizes that Tulsa civics is rotten to the core.

[:O]



Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 24, 2007, 10:06:02 AM
You just make up facts, Friendless Bear.

The sign ordinance is legal and similar to other cities. If you think it is unconstitutional, why don't you take it to court?
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 24, 2007, 10:29:12 AM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

You just make up facts, Friendless Bear.

The sign ordinance is legal and similar to other cities. If you think it is unconstitutional, why don't you take it to court?




You're being pattonly ridiculous, again.

I do not have $1,000,000 to front legal fees fighting our city government, which could legally spend MY OWN TAXES TO DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

With Mayor Chatty Kathy's Democrate buddy, the State Attorney General, joining the City's defense by an amicus filing, too?

Admittedly, if my shyster attorney actually prevailed, he could probably file a claim for attorney fees.

Arvin McGee's attorney did finally get a BIG payday against the City of Tulsa, right?

Most local attorneys have absolutely NO interest in fighting in court the local power establishment that selects the very judges in whose courts they earn their livelihood.

Attorney Louis Bullock used to have the bullocks to take on the entrenched establishment.  Rightly or wrongly, he closed Hissom, and after many years of litigation, he also clawed out reform of medical treament for state prison inmates.  

However, those were STATE cases, not a battle against the local Power Oligarchy.

But, we can ask for Volunteers?

>>Any attorneys interested in suing the City over the Campaign Signs in City Right of Way abridgement of Free Speech???

Mr. Dan Hicks can be the Plaintiff poster boy.....Contact him through www.notulsarivertax.com






Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Townsend on September 24, 2007, 10:39:05 AM
pattonly?
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 24, 2007, 10:41:57 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend

pattonly?



Correct.  Pattonly.

Recyle gets it.

Right, RM?
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 24, 2007, 10:52:01 AM
Friendly Bear:

I am a local attorney, and there is no issue here to be taken to court.

Governments at the Federal, State and local level are free to decide where proper venues for public speech are.  Some areas have been set aside by the courts as special vantages of public speech that can only be encumbered in certain ways/circumstances (for instance, you can stand on a street corner and protest, until he interferes with traffic or gets so large you need police protection - then you need a permit).  In forums of public speech the government must be official neutral and allow all aspects to be represented.

If government could not restrict speech in anyway, the courthouse lawn would be strewn with signs for everything to such an extent that they would do no good.  The inside of every governmental press conference, display board, or courtroom would be awash with shouts and pleas for whatever the political moment called for.  Frankly, it would be anarchy.

In between the two is the way things actually operate.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that local governments can place reasonable restrictions on speech.  Making it illegal to place ANY SIGNS on the public right away is a neutral and reasonable restriction on political and commercial speech.  People are still free to place signs in their yards, their business, billboard space, or to stand with a placard.  

You have no basis for your argument and apparently have no background in constitutional law.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 24, 2007, 11:11:38 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Friendly Bear:

I am a local attorney, and there is no issue here to be taken to court.

Governments at the Federal, State and local level are free to decide where proper venues for public speech are.  Some areas have been set aside by the courts as special vantages of public speech that can only be encumbered in certain ways/circumstances (for instance, you can stand on a street corner and protest, until he interferes with traffic or gets so large you need police protection - then you need a permit).  In forums of public speech the government must be official neutral and allow all aspects to be represented.

If government could not restrict speech in anyway, the courthouse lawn would be strewn with signs for everything to such an extent that they would do no good.  The inside of every governmental press conference, display board, or courtroom would be awash with shouts and pleas for whatever the political moment called for.  Frankly, it would be anarchy.

In between the two is the way things actually operate.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that local governments can place reasonable restrictions on speech.  Making it illegal to place ANY SIGNS on the public right away is a neutral and reasonable restriction on political and commercial speech.  People are still free to place signs in their yards, their business, billboard space, or to stand with a placard.  

You have no basis for your argument and apparently have no background in constitutional law.



Unless it can be shown that the intent of the ordinance is to stifle Free Speech/Free Expression.

The fact that we live in the Banana Republic of Tulsa, and that the sign ordinance is merely another measure of local CONTROL over the political arena, may have some bearing on the legal argument.  

Kind of like Poll Taxes were perfectly legal once, right?

For instance, the lack of any campaign limits permits the Vote Yes Tax Vampires to spend a million dollars in anticipation of collecting  500 million dollars, as part of their favors-trading network of connected cronies controlling the reins of power.  

That lack of a campaign or individual donor limit DROWNS out the free speech of anyone else.

The ordinance is part of pattern, and could be argued against the constitutionality of the sign ordinance.

I didn't bring up the SIGNS in this topic.  

Suggest we argue about it on a New topic you can freely post.

Or not.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 24, 2007, 11:25:52 AM
quote:
Kind of like Poll Taxes were perfectly legal once, right?


WRONG.  Poll taxes were shown to have a discriminatory intent and a discriminatory effect.  No such argument is available when restrictions are put on both sides and have no detrimental effects on one side over the other.  Very simply, there is no case here.

You appear to dislike the entire notion of free speech.  What you want, is targeted speech.  That is to say, the "NO" side in this issue should not have to follow the rules because the "YES" side has more money.  However, you neglect to realize that spending money on signs/TV/Radio/billboards is also an exercise of free speech.  Full circle - their free speech is not as important as yours.

Likewise, your "Banana Republic" argument is a gross hyperbole.  Such an argument would be prudent in some scenarios, but when there is no detrimental intent (especially since that ordinance was passed LONG before this debate came up) nor effect, it losses in a hurry.  When you can still express your views on the internet, in the paper, in your yard, on the street corner, at city meetings, with placards, on billboards, TV, radio, fliers, handouts, and every other way BUT placing signs on public property and those rules apply equally to all sides... then your argument becomes completely, totally, and "no way this even gets to court" baseless.  

Keep talking about topics you are ignorant on, it really strengthens your argument...
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 24, 2007, 11:46:42 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:
Kind of like Poll Taxes were perfectly legal once, right?


WRONG.  Poll taxes were shown to have a discriminatory intent and a discriminatory effect.  No such argument is available when restrictions are put on both sides and have no detrimental effects on one side over the other.  Very simply, there is no case here.

You appear to dislike the entire notion of free speech.  What you want, is targeted speech.  That is to say, the "NO" side in this issue should not have to follow the rules because the "YES" side has more money.  However, you neglect to realize that spending money on signs/TV/Radio/billboards is also an exercise of free speech.  Full circle - their free speech is not as important as yours.

Likewise, your "Banana Republic" argument is a gross hyperbole.  Such an argument would be prudent in some scenarios, but when there is no detrimental intent (especially since that ordinance was passed LONG before this debate came up) nor effect, it losses in a hurry.  When you can still express your views on the internet, in the paper, in your yard, on the street corner, at city meetings, with placards, on billboards, TV, radio, fliers, handouts, and every other way BUT placing signs on public property and those rules apply equally to all sides... then your argument becomes completely, totally, and "no way this even gets to court" baseless.  

Keep talking about topics you are ignorant on, it really strengthens your argument...



CF, we're still off-topic, but maybe this will help explain the law to a lawyer:

Because of the FACTS of our political arena in the Banana Republic of Tulsa, the sign ordinance has a DISPARATE IMPACT on the free speech rights of any grass roots campaign.

How's that for an angle?

On Legality:

Poll taxes were PERFECTLY legal until the SUCO decided they were discriminatory, and therefore illegal.  Until that decision, they were perfectly legal.

It was perfectly legal that human property must be returned to its lawful owner, according to the SUCO in the Dred Scott decision.  1854?

In Plessey v. Ferguson, the SUCO ruled it was perfectly legal to have two separate school systems, one black and one white.  1896?

In 1944, the SUCO ruled it was perfectly legal to incarcerate U.S. Citizens of Japanese descent without due process.

Legal?

All those things were perfectly legal.  

Until someone decided they were no longer perfectly legal.

And, Banana Republic of Tulsa, fits perfectly.

You must be drinking the MetroChamberPots Tax-Me-More Kool-Aid.  

Uh, maybe you're actually MIXING the Kool-Aid?

Is Cannon Fodder really Big Jim Orbison, distinguished local County Government Rain-Maker Attorney?  

By the way, I'm planning to Copyright a Tulsa T-Shirt design; should be out by Xmas.  

Toying with the design of Bill Clinton smoking a banana saying "I love the Banana Republic of T-Town".

Mayor Chatty Kathy will be kneeling on the backside of the T-shirt, as if in prayer for Higher Taxes.

[;)]

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: carltonplace on September 24, 2007, 11:52:18 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Friendly Bear:

I am a local attorney, and there is no issue here to be taken to court.

Governments at the Federal, State and local level are free to decide where proper venues for public speech are.  Some areas have been set aside by the courts as special vantages of public speech that can only be encumbered in certain ways/circumstances (for instance, you can stand on a street corner and protest, until he interferes with traffic or gets so large you need police protection - then you need a permit).  In forums of public speech the government must be official neutral and allow all aspects to be represented.

If government could not restrict speech in anyway, the courthouse lawn would be strewn with signs for everything to such an extent that they would do no good.  The inside of every governmental press conference, display board, or courtroom would be awash with shouts and pleas for whatever the political moment called for.  Frankly, it would be anarchy.

In between the two is the way things actually operate.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that local governments can place reasonable restrictions on speech.  Making it illegal to place ANY SIGNS on the public right away is a neutral and reasonable restriction on political and commercial speech.  People are still free to place signs in their yards, their business, billboard space, or to stand with a placard.  

You have no basis for your argument and apparently have no background in constitutional law.



I spent most of this year in the Philippines (during the election cycle) and I've seen the chaos you describe. If there was a place to hang a sign (walls, windows, park fences, fountains, bridges, bill boards, cars, dogs, little kids) then that place would have so many overlapping signs you could not make sense of it.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 24, 2007, 11:57:30 AM
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace

quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Friendly Bear:

I am a local attorney, and there is no issue here to be taken to court.

Governments at the Federal, State and local level are free to decide where proper venues for public speech are.  Some areas have been set aside by the courts as special vantages of public speech that can only be encumbered in certain ways/circumstances (for instance, you can stand on a street corner and protest, until he interferes with traffic or gets so large you need police protection - then you need a permit).  In forums of public speech the government must be official neutral and allow all aspects to be represented.

If government could not restrict speech in anyway, the courthouse lawn would be strewn with signs for everything to such an extent that they would do no good.  The inside of every governmental press conference, display board, or courtroom would be awash with shouts and pleas for whatever the political moment called for.  Frankly, it would be anarchy.

In between the two is the way things actually operate.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that local governments can place reasonable restrictions on speech.  Making it illegal to place ANY SIGNS on the public right away is a neutral and reasonable restriction on political and commercial speech.  People are still free to place signs in their yards, their business, billboard space, or to stand with a placard.  

You have no basis for your argument and apparently have no background in constitutional law.



I spent most of this year in the Philippines (during the election cycle) and I've seen the chaos you describe. If there was a place to hang a sign (walls, windows, park fences, fountains, bridges, bill boards, cars, dogs, little kids) then that place would have so many overlapping signs you could not make sense of it.



A fledgling, recently minted DEMOCRACY in action.  I love it.  

Go PHILIPPINES!  We love you.

Tulsa's political scenery more closely resembles their predecessor regime:  

The Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos Crony Capitalism.

Many, many similarities.......

[:O]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 24, 2007, 12:00:51 PM
So your stellar legal argument would be:

"Other things used to be legal too, but now they arent, so indiscriminate restricting of signs should be illegal."

Never mind the decades of pesky case law on the issue or the very clear tests associated with it.  Never mind RECENT cases in this regard.  Since some things used to be legal and no longer are, all things that are currently legal should become illegal.  Brilliant legal argument that happens to apply to everything ever done by anyone...

and no, I am not associated with the firm Riggs, Abney, Neal, Turpen, Orbison and Lewis.  Clearly I have connections to that firm, everyone who has ever thought about practicing law in Tulsa knows at least several attorneys in the largest firm in Oklahoma.  I'm but a humble business lawyer who happens to know infinitely more about this topic than you, yet you persist.

Again, this is content neutral restrictions on the location of anonymous speech. Here is a summary with annotations to some case law, have fun:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/20.html#1
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: carltonplace on September 24, 2007, 01:00:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace

quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Friendly Bear:

I am a local attorney, and there is no issue here to be taken to court.

Governments at the Federal, State and local level are free to decide where proper venues for public speech are.  Some areas have been set aside by the courts as special vantages of public speech that can only be encumbered in certain ways/circumstances (for instance, you can stand on a street corner and protest, until he interferes with traffic or gets so large you need police protection - then you need a permit).  In forums of public speech the government must be official neutral and allow all aspects to be represented.

If government could not restrict speech in anyway, the courthouse lawn would be strewn with signs for everything to such an extent that they would do no good.  The inside of every governmental press conference, display board, or courtroom would be awash with shouts and pleas for whatever the political moment called for.  Frankly, it would be anarchy.

In between the two is the way things actually operate.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that local governments can place reasonable restrictions on speech.  Making it illegal to place ANY SIGNS on the public right away is a neutral and reasonable restriction on political and commercial speech.  People are still free to place signs in their yards, their business, billboard space, or to stand with a placard.  

You have no basis for your argument and apparently have no background in constitutional law.



I spent most of this year in the Philippines (during the election cycle) and I've seen the chaos you describe. If there was a place to hang a sign (walls, windows, park fences, fountains, bridges, bill boards, cars, dogs, little kids) then that place would have so many overlapping signs you could not make sense of it.



A fledgling, recently minted DEMOCRACY in action.  I love it.  

Go PHILIPPINES!  We love you.

Tulsa's political scenery more closely resembles their predecessor regime:  

The Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos Crony Capitalism.

Many, many similarities.......

[:O]



Way off topic
I love the Filipinos (mahal kita kaibigan), but their government is corrupt, candidates are routinely killed by opponents rather than letting the public decide at the polls, election commission buildings are mysteriously burned and there is a general sense of lawlessness that leaves the voter disenchanted.

If you could see a picture of candidate posters there, you'd be happy that we have these simple laws in place.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 24, 2007, 01:38:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

So your stellar legal argument would be:

"Other things used to be legal too, but now they arent, so indiscriminate restricting of signs should be illegal."

Never mind the decades of pesky case law on the issue or the very clear tests associated with it.  Never mind RECENT cases in this regard.  Since some things used to be legal and no longer are, all things that are currently legal should become illegal.  Brilliant legal argument that happens to apply to everything ever done by anyone...

and no, I am not associated with the firm Riggs, Abney, Neal, Turpen, Orbison and Lewis.  Clearly I have connections to that firm, everyone who has ever thought about practicing law in Tulsa knows at least several attorneys in the largest firm in Oklahoma.  I'm but a humble business lawyer who happens to know infinitely more about this topic than you, yet you persist.

Again, this is content neutral restrictions on the location of anonymous speech. Here is a summary with annotations to some case law, have fun:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/20.html#1




Well, something is Perfectly Legal until some judge decides it's illegal.  

And, vice versa.

You are right that no amount of case law, precedent or tradition makes one iota of difference when a judge wants to change the law.

The Supreme Court does it starting every October.  

And, I'm sure that each of the rulings I mentioned:  Dred Scott, Plessey, Japanese Internment, etc. cited volumes of precedent, case law, etc., etc., etc., and were all PERFECTLY LEGAL.

Until someone decided they were not perfectly legal.

Note to Attorney:  There is no law; there is only what a judge says. Today.  

Witness the recent SUCO ruling on Eminent Domain, turning 200 years of precedent on its head.  But definitely a "business-friendly" ruling the Development Community could not have imagined in their wildest dreams.

While it's real fun discussing the illegality of the City Restrictive Sign Ordinance, I really, really, really would like to get this thread back on the topic of the Silence of our local Church Leaders regarding the morality of the proposed Kaiser River Tax.

Pretty please?







Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 24, 2007, 03:31:09 PM
No, because you keep misstating not only the nature of the current law, but the entire legal system of the United States.  Your theory on this legal question is based solely on the following logical paradigm:

Things that are legal should be made illegal.
It is currently legal to restrict signs.
Restriction of signs should be made illegal.


That is the worst bit of legal reasoning since the Chewbacca defense.

You fail to realize that the cases you listed were over ruled decades, sometimes a century after they were decided.  At which point an entire volume of new case law had emerged making is possible for the court to reverse itself.  The decisions you mention had an effect on keeping our nation together and were involved with a civil war that left millions dead.  The right to OWN other people...

and you're whining about not being able to put whatever you want wherever you want.  The courts have established tests for given areas, political speech in a public forum is a very heavily covered area.  Clearly you not only know nothing about it, you have no interest in learning.

Not too mention your analysis of case law is horribly wrong:



So, in the instance of the signs...  what new amendments have changed the game?  What policy has failed?  What case law in this regard is so well aged and ripe for change?  In what case law has the court laid the groundwork for a reversal?

The answer to all of the above is NONE. Since you have chosen to continue the conversation without following my educational advice I shall attempt to further educate you:

First of all, a public median is NOT a public forum.  "[T]he First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government." United States Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic donkey'ns, 453 U.S. 114, 129  (1981). Thus, "[t]he crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically compatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time."  Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 116  (1972). The normal use and custom of a street median is NOT as a venue for signs and such activity is arguably contrary to the purpose of transportation.  As such, you have ZERO right to speak there.

If, for some reason, you wanted to argue that a street median is in fact meant as a forum for public speech the court has laid out a stricter test for such restrictions:

1) A government actor may restrict speech in a pubic forum subject to strict scrutiny if:
a) it is justified without reference to the content or subject matter of the speech
b)serves a significant governmental interest
c) and leaves ample alternative channels for communication.

Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288  (1984) (in which a sleep-in protest was banned from a public park in which camping was not allowed). Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 115 S. Ct. 2510 (1995) (regulations on speech must be content neutral). Heffron v. ISKCON, 452 U.S. 640 (1981) .

In this instance, the law is clearly content neutral and as I have pointed our previously there are more than ample alternatives.  One might surmise your best point of attack is on governmental interest.  I'll pretend you know what you are doing and decided to attack that aspect.

However, it is still likely to fail in that public safety and convenience have been deemed significant governmental interests.  Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 554 -55 (1965).  Restrictions on free speech in, around, or near roadways are routinely upheld as a hindrance to the PRIMARY function of the road.  Having people dart in and out of traffic to place signs is dangerous, arguably encouraging drivers to read an ever growing supply of competing signs is dangerous.  Not to mention the inconvenience to residents of such a gross display in what one strives to keep as an attractive community.

So even if some nut job thought a median was constructed to serve as a public forum for speech, the argument would probably STILL fail.

I have given you all the tools and citations to properly construct a legal argument in this regard.  I linked to a cheat sheet on it above.  I have attempted to explain the failures in your logic. If you wish to continue a discussion on a legal topic with a person educated in the law... I suggest you take my advice and educated yourself.

At this point, you are digging the hole ever deeper and making yourself out to be completely without substance.  As obtuse as this topic was to begin with, your "what would Jesus do" argument was stronger than your current position.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 24, 2007, 04:36:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

No, because you keep misstating not only the nature of the current law, but the entire legal system of the United States.  Your theory on this legal question is based solely on the following logical paradigm:

Things that are legal should be made illegal.
It is currently legal to restrict signs.
Restriction of signs should be made illegal.


That is the worst bit of legal reasoning since the Chewbacca defense.

You fail to realize that the cases you listed were over ruled decades, sometimes a century after they were decided.  At which point an entire volume of new case law had emerged making is possible for the court to reverse itself.  The decisions you mention had an effect on keeping our nation together and were involved with a civil war that left millions dead.  The right to OWN other people...

and you're whining about not being able to put whatever you want wherever you want.  The courts have established tests for given areas, political speech in a public forum is a very heavily covered area.  Clearly you not only know nothing about it, you have no interest in learning.

Not too mention your analysis of case law is horribly wrong:


  • The Japanese Internment was never legally over turned.  It was a special power issued in a vague decree.  When the war was over their was suits to gain compensation, but the practice itself was never deemed illegal.


  • Dred Scott was never overruled.  The underlying  laws of the United States were changed, namely the 13th and 14th Amendments.
  •  

  • Plessy v. Ferguson was over ruled some 60 years after it was decided.  The court determined that was ample time to try "separate but equal" and that the doctrine of separate but equal had failed.   Having watched that policy fail for 60 years and etching away at the doctrine for 10 years the Court dictated a change in policy admitting its past mistakes (insomuch as the court does so).


So, in the instance of the signs...  what new amendments have changed the game?  What policy has failed?  What case law in this regard is so well aged and ripe for change?  In what case law has the court laid the groundwork for a reversal?

The answer to all of the above is NONE. Since you have chosen to continue the conversation without following my educational advice I shall attempt to further educate you:

First of all, a public median is NOT a public forum.  "[T]he First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government." United States Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic donkey'ns, 453 U.S. 114, 129  (1981). Thus, "[t]he crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically compatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time."  Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 116  (1972). The normal use and custom of a street median is NOT as a venue for signs and such activity is arguably contrary to the purpose of transportation.  As such, you have ZERO right to speak there.

If, for some reason, you wanted to argue that a street median is in fact meant as a forum for public speech the court has laid out a stricter test for such restrictions:

1) A government actor may restrict speech in a pubic forum subject to strict scrutiny if:
a) it is justified without reference to the content or subject matter of the speech
b)serves a significant governmental interest
c) and leaves ample alternative channels for communication.

Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288  (1984) (in which a sleep-in protest was banned from a public park in which camping was not allowed). Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 115 S. Ct. 2510 (1995) (regulations on speech must be content neutral). Heffron v. ISKCON, 452 U.S. 640 (1981) .

In this instance, the law is clearly content neutral and as I have pointed our previously there are more than ample alternatives.  One might surmise your best point of attack is on governmental interest.  I'll pretend you know what you are doing and decided to attack that aspect.

However, it is still likely to fail in that public safety and convenience have been deemed significant governmental interests.  Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 554 -55 (1965).  Restrictions on free speech in, around, or near roadways are routinely upheld as a hindrance to the PRIMARY function of the road.  Having people dart in and out of traffic to place signs is dangerous, arguably encouraging drivers to read an ever growing supply of competing signs is dangerous.  Not to mention the inconvenience to residents of such a gross display in what one strives to keep as an attractive community.

So even if some nut job thought a median was constructed to serve as a public forum for speech, the argument would probably STILL fail.

I have given you all the tools and citations to properly construct a legal argument in this regard.  I linked to a cheat sheet on it above.  I have attempted to explain the failures in your logic. If you wish to continue a discussion on a legal topic with a person educated in the law... I suggest you take my advice and educated yourself.

At this point, you are digging the hole ever deeper and making yourself out to be completely without substance.  As obtuse as this topic was to begin with, your "what would Jesus do" argument was stronger than your current position.



Very expansive reply.

I hope these are not Billable Hours, at least for me?

And actually, it was YOU, not me who first asked the "What would Jesus do question"

Furthermore, your whole foundation if wrong.  

Where did I say that things that are legal should be made illegal?

No where.

In all the examples that I provided, the point is:

All those things were perfectly legal at one time, and for a long time.

Slavery.  

Segregation/Separate But Equal.  

Internment of CITIZENS without due process.

Until someone decided they were no longer perfectly legal.

If I sue, I'll be sure and not hire you.

My legal foundation still holds:

There is NO LAW.  There is only what a judge says. Today.  

And, morever, in the Banana Republic of Tulsa, there is DEFINITELY no Law, only what the crony judges say.

Dear Judge Jane Wiseman, and her 5-minute long 2003 deliberation before issuing an ORAL ruling that the Log-Rolled Vision 2025 Ballot was actually not a Log-Rolled Ballot.  

After her ruling in 1995 that the County was using a Log-Rolled ballot, in which dissimilar ballot issues were placed on one ballot.  Hence, the cited "logrolling" violation of our State Constitution, which prohibits the practice.

Subsequently rewarded by appointment to the State Court of Appeals, for services rendered the local power establishment.





[}:)]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Renaissance on September 24, 2007, 04:59:30 PM
I really cannot wait until this vote is done.  Then we can have our forum back.

Please, don't feed the trolls bears.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Steve on September 24, 2007, 05:05:10 PM
To answer the original question with my own opinion:

Church leaders should be silent on the "river tax," any other tax, or political election.  If they have indeed been silent on the river tax, then they are doing the right thing.

Churches and church leaders should concern themselves with matters of religious faith only, and have no business delving into secular government matters.  Unless of course they want to forfeit their tax-exempt status.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 24, 2007, 06:43:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Steve

To answer the original question with my own opinion:

Church leaders should be silent on the "river tax," any other tax, or political election.  If they have indeed been silent on the river tax, then they are doing the right thing.

Churches and church leaders should concern themselves with matters of religious faith only, and have no business delving into secular government matters.  Unless of course they want to forfeit their tax-exempt status.



An abundance of church leaders concern themselves with the Question:

What constitutes leading to a Moral Life?

Correct?

Then, it follows what acts do not conform to living a moral life?

Would attempting to take more of the hard-earned money from Tulsa County's struggling families, literally take groceries from their table, so that it will be used to line the pockets of a selected few heavy construction companies, architects, engineers, attorneys, accountants and Bond Underwriters and associated connected cronies, be a MORAL ACT?

The Answer is obvious:

NO.

And, speaking out on the morality of a proposed TAX would not cause the church to forfeit their tax-exempt status.

They are not endorsing a particular candidate.

They frequently agitate for or against Ballot issues, like Liquor by the Drink, Lottery, expanded gambling, and abortion rights.

They can do so freely as it relates to their core religious beliefs.

[:O]

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 24, 2007, 06:50:02 PM
Would starting a war that also lines the pockets of campaign contributors and cabinet members be a moral act?

Where was your outrage against billion dollar no-bid contracts from the company that the vice-president used to lead?

At least this time we get to vote on whether we want the money spent.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: rwarn17588 on September 24, 2007, 06:57:52 PM
I think, RM, that you nailed it: a certain bear as selective outrage.

[}:)]

I'd rather have a real bear around. At least it wouldn't write tedious posts and take the dubious mantra that if you spout falsehoods and innuendo enough times that they somehow become true.

For all of F.B.'s outage, I bet he/she doesn't even vote in every election.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 24, 2007, 06:59:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

Would starting a war that also lines the pockets of campaign contributors and cabinet members be a moral act?

Where was your outrage against billion dollar no-bid contracts from the company that the vice-president used to lead?

At least this time we get to vote on whether we want the money spent.



Of course, those would not be moral acts.

Feel free to post another Topic on the subject of War Profiteering.  

I think the Multinational Oil Companies have also profited mighty handsomely since 9-11, followed by the start of the Iraq War.

Probably just a coincidence....

[:O]

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 24, 2007, 07:04:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd

I really cannot wait until this vote is done.  Then we can have our forum back.

Please, don't feed the trolls bears.



Yet you posted, nonetheless?

Curious?

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Renaissance on September 24, 2007, 07:31:28 PM
I posted because I saw an absurd topic by an absurd poster extended by good faith replies.

Good faith replies to irrational posts on internet forums, thereby giving more opportunity for irrational posting, is known as "feeding the trolls."  I thought I'd suggest to the other posters that they not respond to your baiting.

You can't have a rational discussion with an irrational person, so why try?  You're a nasty little troll, clogging up an otherwise more or less pleasant forum, and I'm very much looking forward to your return to hibernation.

October 9 can't get here soon enough.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 24, 2007, 07:33:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd

I posted because I saw an absurd topic by an absurd poster extended by good faith replies.

Good faith replies to irrational posts on internet forums, thereby giving more opportunity for irrational posting, is known as "feeding the trolls."  I thought I'd suggest to the other posters that they not respond to your baiting.

You can't have a rational discussion with an irrational person, so why try?  You're a nasty little troll, clogging up an otherwise more or less pleasant forum, and I'm very much looking forward to your return to hibernation.

October 9 can't get here soon enough.



There's no baiting by me in the slightest.

It's a legitimate Query, honestly asked.

And, expecting an earnest, honest reply.

If there's been baiting done, it's been by others baiting and threadcrapping this topic.

RecycleM and Cannot Fodder come to mind.

And, I actually OUTRANK you, having 4 stars to your puny 3 stars, even after resting in a Hibernation of one year.


[:X]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 25, 2007, 08:38:31 AM
Yeah, sorry Floyd.  I figured if I outlined the state of the law with references and clarifications that he might get it.  Unfortunately, he did not even understand my logic paradigm, let along the entire point.  Some people just take what they 'hear' at face value.  Must be those damn liberal judges making things up again.

Stupid common law tradition dating back to the 1200's.  How dare these judges use that kind of new fangled radicalism.

I shall abstain from feeding the trolls.  I always fall for this, I'm like the man who tries to save the drowning guy in the flood and everyone goes "of course he drown too."  Just not as heroic.  [;)]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Renaissance on September 25, 2007, 08:53:52 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

[:X]




I do respect the kissy face.  

[;)]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 25, 2007, 09:05:32 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Yeah, sorry Floyd.  I figured if I outlined the state of the law with references and clarifications that he might get it.  Unfortunately, he did not even understand my logic paradigm, let along the entire point.  Some people just take what they 'hear' at face value.  Must be those damn liberal judges making things up again.

Stupid common law tradition dating back to the 1200's.  How dare these judges use that kind of new fangled radicalism.

I shall abstain from feeding the trolls.  I always fall for this, I'm like the man who tries to save the drowning guy in the flood and everyone goes "of course he drown too."  Just not as heroic.  [;)]



Your altruism is touching. You're a Hero.  
Really.

Then again, the imprecision of either a homeowner's measurements, or the Tulsa city code enforcement Gestapo to determine EXACTLY where a private residential property line 12' set-back from the city easement lies for proper Campaign Sign placement, without actually performing a detailed, precise site survey, seems highly suspect.

Could the arbitrary, capricious, and imprecise City Code enforcement of the 12' set-back then be interpreted, when taken as a whole with the City Sign Ordinance, that someone in power doesn't want certain campaign signs to be placed even on Private Property, and is seeking to DISENFRANCHISE certain of the citizens?

Now, THAT sounds unconstitutional....

How can you express free speech with a campaign yard sign planted on your own private property if you have no expectation that the city code enforcement knows with any precision actually where the city easement ends, and where the private property line lies, and thus whether the campaign sign is legal or illegally placed?

Oh, if the city or one of Councilor Bill Martinet's Sign Trolls vacumns up the campaign sign from a private yard, then it MUST have been illegally placed?

[:P]


Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Bledsoe on September 25, 2007, 09:27:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Steve

To answer the original question with my own opinion:

Church leaders should be silent on the "river tax," any other tax, or political election.  If they have indeed been silent on the river tax, then they are doing the right thing.

Churches and church leaders should concern themselves with matters of religious faith only, and have no business delving into secular government matters.  Unless of course they want to forfeit their tax-exempt status.



Sorry guys, I just have to respond to this one.
It is just plain wrong, legally and generally.  The only limitation on religious organizations (or other tax-exempt groups) in political matters is in promoting candidates or political organizations like the democratic or republican parties.  There is absolutely no limitation on them becoming involved in issues of the day such as war, poverty, taxes, justice, abortion, immigration, streets, liquor, environmental issues or any other public policy.

See:  http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=155030,00.html

I am glad my church and my minister have commented on and taken stands on political issues.

I think taxes can be a moral or ethical issue.  Some might say that a regressive sales tax is unjust.  I know several people who tell me they cannot support any more sales taxes for this reason.  For them it is a moral issue.

I must say that I do not like our present sales tax structure. In relative terms, poor people pay a much higher percentage of their income in sales taxes than middle class and rich people.  It is a "regressive" tax.  As it approaches 10% it is getting too high.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax

I especially do not like the fact that essential food is taxed and services are not.  There is a justice issue in a poor mother paying sales tax on milk and bread for her children and a rich lady paying no tax on her hair and nails.  There is a moral dilemma for me in a large corporation paying no sales tax on their attorneys fees to defend a pollution lawsuit and a family paying almost 10% on basic clothing for their children.

Others see a sales tax as the fairest of all taxes--every one who buys pays and many who buy from outside Tulsa County will be paying for the river development.  Historically, Oklahomans have defeated most other forms of taxes.  In modern times, the public has almost only voted for sales taxes.  Remember, Oklahoma is the lowest taxed state in the union.  

See:  http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/475.html

I think religious people and organizations are justified and indeed maybe obligated in speaking out about unfair taxes.  However, in relative terms, I support the river proposal and will vote for the modest sales tax increase.

I see more good and less evil coming from its passage--this includes more good for poor people who will have the free use of the equivalent of New York's Central Park.   More good for the low-income neighborhoods along the Sand Springs line, in West Tulsa and from 41st to 71st along Riverside Drive who will see their property values increase and the ability of rental property to be improved.  In real terms the low-income rebate, if it motivates more qualified people to file an income tax return to get the earned income tax credit, will actually get them a net monetary increase-- the EITC and the rebate.  CAP and the TU legal clinic will prepare the return for free.

I think you can cherry-pick this proposal to death, but no one problem has tipped the balance for me and this includes an "evil" sale tax that will only last seven years and for a family making $25,000 or less and will only cost it $2.50 a month with the low-income rebate.

I suggest that as moral and religious people we vote for this tax and then work in the legislature to reform Oklahoma tax law to make it more fair.  But I think we have to use the tax system we have now. IMHO, this tax, used for the infrastructure for a great public place, is certainly much more fair than the corporate welfare/blackmail of the Boeing deal in 2003 with Vision 2025, a sales tax that was approved.

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 25, 2007, 09:31:27 AM
Now wait a minute...

Is the city actually taking signs out of people's yards?  All of my post was discussing public medians and rights of way, not EASEMENTS.  If the city has an easement on your property they can use it for whatever the easement grant is for (ie. utility), but they have no rights beyond that.

Can someone clarify, is the city entering into people's front yards and taking signs?  If so, that's weak.  Maybe not illegal, but weak.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: sgrizzle on September 25, 2007, 09:49:23 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Bledsoe


I am glad my church and my minister have commented on and taken stands on political issues.



I am equally glad I don't go to your church.


quote:
Originally posted by Bledsoe


I suggest that as moral and religious people we ... work in the legislature to reform Oklahoma tax law to make it more fair.  But I think we have to use the tax system we have now.



I agree with you on this part though.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 25, 2007, 10:00:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Now wait a minute...

Is the city actually taking signs out of people's yards?  All of my post was discussing public medians and rights of way, not EASEMENTS.  If the city has an easement on your property they can use it for whatever the easement grant is for (ie. utility), but they have no rights beyond that.

Can someone clarify, is the city entering into people's front yards and taking signs?  If so, that's weak.  Maybe not illegal, but weak.



The Troll has drawn the Loose Cannon back over the Bridge to the Banana Republic of Tulsa.

Okay, I'll explain.

A few months ago, RecycleMichael, had a favorable, Lorton's World puff piece article about a group of volunteers that he leads that under Councilor Bill Martinet's alleged urging, are going around and vacumning signs from the city rights of way.

RM was also quoted in the article as saying his group would receive "training" as to what constituted the city easement.  

Since many houses all over Tulsa obviously front or backup to major city streets, someone in his group would be put into a position of exercising judgment about where the 12' feet ARBITRARY city easement ends, and where it begins.  Remember, these are supposedly VOLUNTEERS.

For instance, on Harvard Avenue between 71st and 81st, the street has no curbs and only bar ditches for drainage.

The curving road and resultant curvy yards are not precisely squared off in relation to Harvard.

And, there are multiple campaign signs along  Harvard Avenue in front of those houses.

The same is true for almost any two lane former farm to market roads that are now called 61st street, 81st street, 91st street, 101st street, etc.

Uh, just EXACTLY where does the 12' end, and the private property begin along such a street?

Uh, even if the homeowner PAID for a new survey so that he could with LEGAL PRECISION plant his campaign yard sign clearly on his side of the property line, would the city sign enforcement, Public Werkes Dept., or the Sign Nazi volunteers make the same measurement??

I think they'd just grab the sign, and go.  A Smash and Grab against free speech rights.

Furthermore, I do not believe that the uniform 12' easement is in fact uniform in every subdivision in Tulsa.

I think the 12' "standard" set-back was something that the acting Tulsa City Attorney retrieved from some hidden orifice.

The current city subdivision building codes have much wider streets, a post-WWII standard that was adopted in relation to allowing Fire Trucks access to a neighborhood even if cars were parked along both sides of the street.

RecycleMichael is free to opine to clarify or re-but, but I think I've essentially got the facts of his campaign sign vacumning force correctly stated.

The pretext of campaign sign vacumning, of course, is city beautification, and "preserving" the city right of way.

The ulterior intent is to stifle the free expression of speech of unfunded or poorly funded grass roots organizations.

Again, the latest sign enforcement was created as a counter-measure to stifle any grass roots political message, subsequent to two failures of proposed Arena sales taxes.  

The local power establishment just had to shut down the Vote No signs.

Their newest wrinkle of the Local Ruling Power Elite is the East Tulsa Used Car Dealer offering a $5.00 bounty on the Vote No signs.

Wonder who's funding the $5.00 per??

Wonder who determines the provenance of the sign being brought in for the $5.00 bounty?  

Must have been in the public right of way, right-o?

[:O]

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 25, 2007, 10:14:22 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Bledsoe

quote:
Originally posted by Steve

To answer the original question with my own opinion:

Church leaders should be silent on the "river tax," any other tax, or political election.  If they have indeed been silent on the river tax, then they are doing the right thing.

Churches and church leaders should concern themselves with matters of religious faith only, and have no business delving into secular government matters.  Unless of course they want to forfeit their tax-exempt status.



Sorry guys, I just have to respond to this one.
It is just plain wrong, legally and generally.  The only limitation on religious organizations (or other tax-exempt groups) in political matters is in promoting candidates or political organizations like the democratic or republican parties.  There is absolutely no limitation on them becoming involved in issues of the day such as war, poverty, taxes, justice, abortion, immigration, streets, liquor, environmental issues or any other public policy.

See:  http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=155030,00.html

I am glad my church and my minister have commented on and taken stands on political issues.

I think taxes can be a moral or ethical issue.  Some might say that a regressive sales tax is unjust.  I know several people who tell me they cannot support any more sales taxes for this reason.  For them it is a moral issue.

I must say that I do not like our present sales tax structure. In relative terms, poor people pay a much higher percentage of their income in sales taxes than middle class and rich people.  It is a "regressive" tax.  As it approaches 10% it is getting too high.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax

I especially do not like the fact that essential food is taxed and services are not.  There is a justice issue in a poor mother paying sales tax on milk and bread for her children and a rich lady paying no tax on her hair and nails.  There is a moral dilemma for me in a large corporation paying no sales tax on their attorneys fees to defend a pollution lawsuit and a family paying almost 10% on basic clothing for their children.

Others see a sales tax as the fairest of all taxes--every one who buys pays and many who buy from outside Tulsa County will be paying for the river development.  Historically, Oklahomans have defeated most other forms of taxes.  In modern times, the public has almost only voted for sales taxes.  Remember, Oklahoma is the lowest taxed state in the union.  

See:  http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/475.html

I think religious people and organizations are justified and indeed maybe obligated in speaking out about unfair taxes.  However, in relative terms, I support the river proposal and will vote for the modest sales tax increase.

I see more good and less evil coming from its passage--this includes more good for poor people who will have the free use of the equivalent of New York's Central Park.   More good for the low-income neighborhoods along the Sand Springs line, in West Tulsa and from 41st to 71st along Riverside Drive who will see their property values increase and the ability of rental property to be improved.  In real terms the low-income rebate, if it motivates more qualified people to file an income tax return to get the earned income tax credit, will actually get them a net monetary increase-- the EITC and the rebate.  CAP and the TU legal clinic will prepare the return for free.

I think you can cherry-pick this proposal to death, but no one problem has tipped the balance for me and this includes an "evil" sale tax that will only last seven years and for a family making $25,000 or less and will only cost it $2.50 a month with the low-income rebate.

I suggest that as moral and religious people we vote for this tax and then work in the legislature to reform Oklahoma tax law to make it more fair.  But I think we have to use the tax system we have now. IMHO, this tax, used for the infrastructure for a great public place, is certainly much more fair than the corporate welfare/blackmail of the Boeing deal in 2003 with Vision 2025, a sales tax that was approved.





Thank you for adding to the discussion.

I thought after you said a higher sales tax because of its regressive impact on the poor was a moral issue, I was expecting you to say you were voting NO on Oct. 9.

Hence my surprise. Aren't you the Bledsoe that stood up to fight against the recent Lorton's World engineered power-grab to add At-Large Councilors to the City Council structure?  There was a Bledsoe so involved, as well as a Blesoe involved in the lawsuit that forced a change in our form of city council structure back around 1990....a Minority Voter Disenfrachisement issue.  Very Valid what was done to require the change.

I appreciate that Bledsoe's tenancity in a good cause.

On sales taxes, I doubt if the Legislature has any appetite for reform of the sales tax on groceries.  Oklahoma is one of the few remaining states, about 10 as I recall, mostly in the South, that still levies sales tax on groceries.

Afterall, we were the next to last state to outlaw Cockfighting, and the last state to legalized Tatooing, for gosh sakes.

One last thought:  If the Kaiser River Tax passes, it will be FOREVER.  This is just Phase I.  The local construction companies will never let it lapse.

Thanks for contributing, nonetheless.

[^]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 25, 2007, 10:26:41 AM
We have never picked up signs in a person's yard. Our group will not.

We did receive training, and got exact right-of-way maps before we organized volunteers.

The majority of the signs we remove are promoting light hauling, roofing, house buyers and personal products and services. We concentrate specifically on medians and arterial intersection corners.

Do not try to imply that we have done anything wrong or are involved in targeting one type of sign. We pick up all signs when we do a cleanup.

For you to say..."The ulterior intent is to stifle the free expression of speech of unfunded or poorly funded grass roots organizations"... is absurd. We are a grass-roots group with a simple mission of keep Tulsa beautiful.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 25, 2007, 10:33:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

We have never picked up signs in a person's yard. Our group will not.

We did receive training, and got exact right-of-way maps before we organized volunteers.

The majority of the signs we remove are promoting light hauling, roofing, house buyers and personal products and services. We concentrate specifically on medians and arterial intersection corners.

Do not try to imply that we have done anything wrong or are involved in targeting one type of sign. We pick up all signs when we do a cleanup.

For you to say..."The ulterior intent is to stifle the free expression of speech of unfunded or poorly funded grass roots organizations"... is absurd. We are a grass-roots group with a simple mission of keep Tulsa beautiful.



Is the CITY Sign Enforcement or Public Werkes Department picking up signs from people's yards, under the pretext they are sited in the city Right of Way?

Hmmmmmmh??

Do your volunteers not exercise their own judgment as to where the so-called City right of way begins, and where the private residential yard ends?????

Hmmmmmmhh???

If what you're saying is the Truth, did it occur to you that Mr. Martinet and who he is fronting for, just might be USING your Volunteer organization to achieve that Ulterior Motive??

Your motive may be pure as the driven snow.

Maybe.

But I doubt it.  Based on your voluminous, vituperous, and vociferous defense of the indefensible in the Forum.  Forever.

Did your Volunteers pick up any Vote NO campaign signs along Harvard, between 71st and 81st?
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 25, 2007, 10:53:39 AM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

We have never picked up signs in a person's yard. Our group will not.

We did receive training, and got exact right-of-way maps before we organized volunteers.

The majority of the signs we remove are promoting light hauling, roofing, house buyers and personal products and services. We concentrate specifically on medians and arterial intersection corners.

Do not try to imply that we have done anything wrong or are involved in targeting one type of sign. We pick up all signs when we do a cleanup.

For you to say..."The ulterior intent is to stifle the free expression of speech of unfunded or poorly funded grass roots organizations"... is absurd. We are a grass-roots group with a simple mission of keep Tulsa beautiful.



So, let me picture your group in action:

Your group of Volunteers is out walking along the shoulder of a busy road, with a Right-of-Way map in one hand, a tape measure in the other hand, and which hand is picking up the Vote NO campaign sign?

Or, maybe you're carrying the signs in your mouth?

Have any of your group redeemed the $5.00 cash bounty offered on the Vote No Signs by Mr. Used Car Dealer??

There's some beer money waiting.

[;)]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 25, 2007, 11:15:42 AM
No. We have not taken signs to the car dealer.

No. We were around long before Councilor Martinsen ran for office.

Yes. We do take tape measures with us and consult with maps before we do a sweep.

No. We do not work shoulder-to-shoulder. We generally find a safe place to park and then spread out quickly.

Yes. You have no idea and just want to cause trouble.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Double A on September 25, 2007, 11:40:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Steve

To answer the original question with my own opinion:

Church leaders should be silent on the "river tax," any other tax, or political election.  If they have indeed been silent on the river tax, then they are doing the right thing.

Churches and church leaders should concern themselves with matters of religious faith only, and have no business delving into secular government matters.  Unless of course they want to forfeit their tax-exempt status.



Does that include the issue of illegal immigration and HB 1804 too? We have churches and religious leaders that knowingly and willfully aid and abet criminal activity with impunity, should they be held accountable for their actions?
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 25, 2007, 11:46:51 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Double A

quote:
Originally posted by Steve

To answer the original question with my own opinion:

Church leaders should be silent on the "river tax," any other tax, or political election.  If they have indeed been silent on the river tax, then they are doing the right thing.

Churches and church leaders should concern themselves with matters of religious faith only, and have no business delving into secular government matters.  Unless of course they want to forfeit their tax-exempt status.



Does that include the issue of illegal immigration and HB 1804 too? We have churches and religious leaders that knowingly and willfully aid and abet criminal activity with impunity, should they be held accountable for their actions?



It is my understanding that there are many churches that offer temporary sanctuary to non-English speaking, undocumented aliens.  Food, shelter, clothing, walking around money, and information.  

Are identity documents provided?  

Maybe they are just put in touch with the right people.

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 25, 2007, 11:49:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

No. We have not taken signs to the car dealer.

No. We were around long before Councilor Martinsen ran for office.

Yes. We do take tape measures with us and consult with maps before we do a sweep.

No. We do not work shoulder-to-shoulder. We generally find a safe place to park and then spread out quickly.

Yes. You have no idea and just want to cause trouble.



If you're carrying a map in one hand, and a tape measure in the other, WHERE do you hold the confiscated Vote NO sign?

Is it a wedgie??

Must make it difficult to walk.

How did your Volunteers handle Vote NO campaign signs along Harvard, between 71st and 81st?

Can you REALLY determine the exact boundary of the City Right of Way vs. the yard property line, on one of those old, unimproved former county Farm-to-Market roads?  Like Harvard, 61st, 81st, 91st, etc., without using a Survey Instrument???

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Double A on September 25, 2007, 12:02:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Bledsoe

quote:
Originally posted by Steve

To answer the original question with my own opinion:

Church leaders should be silent on the "river tax," any other tax, or political election.  If they have indeed been silent on the river tax, then they are doing the right thing.

Churches and church leaders should concern themselves with matters of religious faith only, and have no business delving into secular government matters.  Unless of course they want to forfeit their tax-exempt status.



Sorry guys, I just have to respond to this one.
It is just plain wrong, legally and generally.  The only limitation on religious organizations (or other tax-exempt groups) in political matters is in promoting candidates or political organizations like the democratic or republican parties.  There is absolutely no limitation on them becoming involved in issues of the day such as war, poverty, taxes, justice, abortion, immigration, streets, liquor, environmental issues or any other public policy.

See:  http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=155030,00.html

I am glad my church and my minister have commented on and taken stands on political issues.

I think taxes can be a moral or ethical issue.  Some might say that a regressive sales tax is unjust.  I know several people who tell me they cannot support any more sales taxes for this reason.  For them it is a moral issue.

I must say that I do not like our present sales tax structure. In relative terms, poor people pay a much higher percentage of their income in sales taxes than middle class and rich people.  It is a "regressive" tax.  As it approaches 10% it is getting too high.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax

I especially do not like the fact that essential food is taxed and services are not.  There is a justice issue in a poor mother paying sales tax on milk and bread for her children and a rich lady paying no tax on her hair and nails.  There is a moral dilemma for me in a large corporation paying no sales tax on their attorneys fees to defend a pollution lawsuit and a family paying almost 10% on basic clothing for their children.

Others see a sales tax as the fairest of all taxes--every one who buys pays and many who buy from outside Tulsa County will be paying for the river development.  Historically, Oklahomans have defeated most other forms of taxes.  In modern times, the public has almost only voted for sales taxes.  Remember, Oklahoma is the lowest taxed state in the union.  

See:  http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/475.html

I think religious people and organizations are justified and indeed maybe obligated in speaking out about unfair taxes.  However, in relative terms, I support the river proposal and will vote for the modest sales tax increase.

I see more good and less evil coming from its passage--this includes more good for poor people who will have the free use of the equivalent of New York's Central Park.   More good for the low-income neighborhoods along the Sand Springs line, in West Tulsa and from 41st to 71st along Riverside Drive who will see their property values increase and the ability of rental property to be improved.  In real terms the low-income rebate, if it motivates more qualified people to file an income tax return to get the earned income tax credit, will actually get them a net monetary increase-- the EITC and the rebate.  CAP and the TU legal clinic will prepare the return for free.

I think you can cherry-pick this proposal to death, but no one problem has tipped the balance for me and this includes an "evil" sale tax that will only last seven years and for a family making $25,000 or less and will only cost it $2.50 a month with the low-income rebate.

I suggest that as moral and religious people we vote for this tax and then work in the legislature to reform Oklahoma tax law to make it more fair.  But I think we have to use the tax system we have now. IMHO, this tax, used for the infrastructure for a great public place, is certainly much more fair than the corporate welfare/blackmail of the Boeing deal in 2003 with Vision 2025, a sales tax that was approved.



At least permanent high paying jobs would have been created as a result of the Boeing deal, instead of just low paying temporary construction jobs with no prevailing wage protections and low paying service industry jobs if they even materialize. Wouldn't it be nice if the private developers who benefit from the corporate welfare in this tax would have to guarantee the economic impact projections and sales tax collections the same way Boeing would have to guarantee the jobs in order to collect their corporate welfare/blackmail? Where are the guarantees for a return on the investment in this tax? It's simple, there aren't any. Big difference.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Conan71 on September 25, 2007, 12:09:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Double A

At least permanent high paying jobs would have been created as a result of the Boeing deal, instead of just low paying temporary construction jobs with no prevailing wage protections and low paying service industry jobs if they even materialize. Wouldn't it be nice if the private developers who benefit from the corporate welfare in this tax would have to guarantee the economic impact projections and sales tax collections the same way Boeing would have to guarantee the jobs in order to collect their corporate welfare/blackmail? Where are the guarantees for a return on the investment in this tax? It's simple, there aren't any. Big difference.




I found Piercy's comments amusing (loosely paraphrased):

"Boeing could've been gone in ten years.  The river will always be here.  Those are the kind of secure jobs we need (assuming he was slurring out the kind of jobs river development will create long-term)."

I believe all that was encapsulated after he made a comment about our crappy wage call center jobs we presently attract.

Oh, the irony.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 25, 2007, 12:13:58 PM
Just to clarify RM... when you say "never picked up signs our of a person's yard" do you mean out of any portion of what would commonly be referred to as a yard or specifically "non-easement" part of the yard?

If I had a sign 5 feet from the curb and my easement runs in 12, I would have a real problem with someone entering my property to remove that sign.  No matter what it said.  

and to show that I give props were deserved:
quote:
The Troll has drawn the Loose Cannon back over the Bridge to the Banana Republic of Tulsa.

Made me chuckle.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 25, 2007, 01:00:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Just to clarify RM... when you say "never picked up signs our of a person's yard" do you mean out of any portion of what would commonly be referred to as a yard or specifically "non-easement" part of the yard?

If I had a sign 5 feet from the curb and my easement runs in 12, I would have a real problem with someone entering my property to remove that sign.  No matter what it said.  

and to show that I give props were deserved:
quote:
The Troll has drawn the Loose Cannon back over the Bridge to the Banana Republic of Tulsa.

Made me chuckle.



Glad we can still laugh.

Did I mention that in my spare time I vacation in Canada, clubbing baby seal pups for entertainment??

Back to business:  In the technical reading of the city ordinance, virtually any REALTOR sign placed in the residential yards right next to the curb is illegal.  

Remember the 12' Rule.  NO EXCEPTIONS for Political Speech, right?

And, NO EXCEPTIONS to the 12' Rule for our good friends of Recall, the REALTORS.  

Right, RecycleMichael??

If illegal, then they can be harvested by any concerned citizen, right?

Hmmmmmh......

Wonder if the individual Realtors will pay a $5.00 per sign bounty to get their signs back??

Perpetual beer money, at last!  Pick up three REALTOR signs on the way home, and there's a new 18-pack in the Fridge for some enterprising lad.

Did I not say UNCONSTITUTIONAL Ordinance?  There can be NO SIGN PAIN, unless the PAIN is SHARED EQUALLY.

Disparate impact.

NOTE TO GTAR from Medlock and Mautino:  Payback time.

Getting the picture yet?
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: rwarn17588 on September 25, 2007, 02:27:44 PM
If it's an unconstitutional ordinance, why don't you call the ACLU or a civil-rights lawyer?

If you're that bothered by it, act instead of complain.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Bledsoe on September 25, 2007, 02:28:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

Quote

Thank you for adding to the discussion.

I thought after you said a higher sales tax because of its regressive impact on the poor was a moral issue, I was expecting you to say you were voting NO on Oct. 9.

Hence my surprise. Aren't you the Bledsoe that stood up to fight against the recent Lorton's World engineered power-grab to add At-Large Councilors to the City Council structure?  There was a Bledsoe so involved, as well as a Blesoe involved in the lawsuit that forced a change in our form of city council structure back around 1990....a Minority Voter Disenfrachisement issue.  Very Valid what was done to require the change.

I appreciate that Bledsoe's tenancity in a good cause.



[^]





I am this same Bledsoe.  For more information on this past fight see:  http://www.tulsansdefendingdemocracy.com/2006/04/position_of_tulsans_defending.html
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 25, 2007, 02:57:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588

If it's an unconstitutional ordinance, why don't you call the ACLU or a civil-rights lawyer?

If you're that bothered by it, act instead of complain.



There are at least two active lawyers responding on this Topic.

Cannon Fodder apparently does not think the ordinance is Unconstitutional.

Don't know what Bledsoe thinks about the sign ordinance.  

Bledsoe could be the right man for the job. .

Apparently, he's got some considerable backbone and tenacity, considering his involvement in getting the DISCRIMINATORY form of city government changed in 1989, tearing the city a new one in the process.

As I understand it, he was more recently a leader of a group fighting to keep the Strong Mayor/City Council organization from being changed into the At-Large Councilor evil machinations of the Lorton's World.

Maybe he'll opine....

Calling Mr. Bledsoe. The citizens of Tulsa need your guts and brains again.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 25, 2007, 02:58:24 PM
Our group does not go into residential yards to remove signs. We are completely a volunteer group who gets together and cleans commercial corridors.

There used to many illegal signs around town, but the city crews are doing a great job in cleaning them up.

I think that the best part of our campaign has been to help educate everybody on the rules. I can see the difference all across town.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 25, 2007, 03:10:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

Our group does not go into residential yards to remove signs. We are completely a volunteer group who gets together and cleans commercial corridors.

There used to many illegal signs around town, but the city crews are doing a great job in cleaning them up.

I think that the best part of our campaign has been to help educate everybody on the rules. I can see the difference all across town.



Yes, stunning street vistas clear of those tacky Vote NO signs, but amazingly cluttered by Overhead Utility Lines as far as the eye can see.

Now those power lines are TACKY.

[:X]

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 25, 2007, 03:11:41 PM

I am not bothered by nor have I ever picked up a realtor sign. They are usually in residential yards and we don't go there.

You call the realtors "friends of recall"...why do you hate realtors, Friendly Bear?

Because they exercised the right to free speech?
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 25, 2007, 03:18:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael


I am not bothered by nor have I ever picked up a realtor sign. They are usually in residential yards and we don't go there.

You call the realtors "friends of recall"...why do you hate realtors, Friendly Bear?

Because they exercised the right to free speech?




I sold a house once, and I've been mad at them every since, of course.

The REALTOR signs, if within 12' of the curbline, are illegal, aren't they??

GTAR leadership were principals in the Recall Cabal.  Gave their good name, and gave their money, in the name of good continued residential development in Owasso and Bixby.

Or, keep that fresh water flowing from Tulsa to Bixby and Owasso for the next 40 years......

And, Councilors Mautino and Medlock were guilty of the temerity of asking, "Why is Tulsa doing this?".

So, of course, they had to be Recalled.

[:O]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 25, 2007, 03:30:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

Our group does not go into residential yards to remove signs. We are completely a volunteer group who gets together and cleans commercial corridors.

There used to many illegal signs around town, but the city crews are doing a great job in cleaning them up.

I think that the best part of our campaign has been to help educate everybody on the rules. I can see the difference all across town.



So, if your volunteer group is completely innocent, Recycle, which CITY crews go into peoples YARDS to remove NO RIVER TAX campaign signs?

City Sign Ordinance Gestapo, or Public Werkes Gestapo? Or both?

Or, maybe the TPD is arresting those yard signs?

Hmmmmhm, at $5.00 Bounty per sign, and using a TPD-issued patrol car and using City of Tulsa purchased gasoline to Patrol our neighborhoods looking for Vote NO campaign signs within 12' of the curbline, that could add up to a tidy profit for our over-worked, underpaid Men in Black.

SNAPPY new black uniforms, with their pistol belt buckles emblazoned with a motto:  

My Honor is Loyalty.







Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Double A on September 25, 2007, 03:35:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael


I am not bothered by nor have I ever picked up a realtor sign.


Why not? Metro Lofts has their signs illegally placed all over my neighborhood.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 25, 2007, 03:38:33 PM
Medlock and Mautino went through a recall process because many people thought they were not doing a good job.

I thought it was stupid to have a recall when terms are only two years and no crime had been committed.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 25, 2007, 03:48:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

Medlock and Mautino went through a recall process because many people thought they were not doing a good job.

I thought it was stupid to have a recall when terms are only two years and no crime had been committed.



For once, I totally agree with something you've said.  

I too thought a Recall was wrong and stupid  when NO CRIME or ETHICAL infraction had been committed.  OR even charged.

By the way, RecycleMichael, on my earlier query, if your volunteer group is completely innocent, which CITY crews go into peoples YARDS to remove NO RIVER TAX campaign signs?

City Sign Ordinance Gestapo, or Public Werkes Gestapo?

Or both?

Or, maybe the TPD is arresting those yard signs, for the $5.00 Reward?

COME OUT OF THAT YARD WITH YOUR STICK-UP??
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 25, 2007, 04:16:06 PM
Thank you for your response RM.

You have no argument Bear.  In fact, half of what you say makes no sense now that his position/actions have been clarified.  Oh well, continue on...
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 25, 2007, 04:28:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Thank you for your response RM.

You have no argument Bear.  In fact, half of what you say makes no sense now that his position/actions have been clarified.  Oh well, continue on...



You need to closely examine RM's responses for clever parsing of response.

He said his volunteers did not go into yards.

Define yard.

Also, he did not say the city work crews or sign enforcement personnel did not vacumn Campaign Signs from residential yards (the ubiquitous 12' limit).

And, those REALTOR signs within 12' of the curbline are illegal, aren't they???

[:D]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 25, 2007, 06:19:04 PM
I give up Bear.

We have not targeted your signs. I have no idea who took the signs that you say are gone from south Tulsa.

The city crews do not work for me. I have no idea where they work each day.

There are many illegal signs that our group does not target including real estate signs found in residential yards. Every Shell station and Sonic restaurant also have installed signs without permits as well as most convenience stores using banners promoting sales on cans of beer. Most of the bus benches you see are also illegally placed and not permitted. We realize the limits of what volunteers can do.

Our group of volunteers have spent time learning the rules and are very sure of the right-of-way before we pick-up signs.

There is nothing you can say that will deter us from our work. We purposely chose to work with the permit section, city council and Mayor's office as volunteers helping keep our city clean.

We will continue our work long after this next election is over.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Double A on September 25, 2007, 06:33:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

I give up Bear.

We have not targeted your signs. I have no idea who took the signs that you say are gone from south Tulsa.

The city crews do not work for me. I have no idea where they work each day.

There are many illegal signs that our group does not target including real estate signs found in residential yards. Every Shell station and Sonic restaurant also have installed signs without permits as well as most convenience stores using banners promoting sales on cans of beer. Most of the bus benches you see are also illegally placed and not permitted. We realize the limits of what volunteers can do.

Our group of volunteers have spent time learning the rules and are very sure of the right-of-way before we pick-up signs.

There is nothing you can say that will deter us from our work. We purposely chose to work with the permit section, city council and Mayor's office as volunteers helping keep our city clean.

We will continue our work long after this next election is over.



What about realtor signs illegally placed in the right of ways?
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 25, 2007, 07:02:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

I give up Bear.

We have not targeted your signs. I have no idea who took the signs that you say are gone from south Tulsa.

The city crews do not work for me. I have no idea where they work each day.

There are many illegal signs that our group does not target including real estate signs found in residential yards. Every Shell station and Sonic restaurant also have installed signs without permits as well as most convenience stores using banners promoting sales on cans of beer. Most of the bus benches you see are also illegally placed and not permitted. We realize the limits of what volunteers can do.

Our group of volunteers have spent time learning the rules and are very sure of the right-of-way before we pick-up signs.

There is nothing you can say that will deter us from our work. We purposely chose to work with the permit section, city council and Mayor's office as volunteers helping keep our city clean.

We will continue our work long after this next election is over.



And, continue to do your most useful work for the ruling power establishment the 60 days before any Tax-related election:

VACUMNING VOTE NO CAMPAIGN SIGNS.


[}:)]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Rico on September 25, 2007, 07:48:03 PM
Bear..........You need to calm down just a bit....

Just like they won't let the opposing voice in the City Council rant and rave.... It doesn't make a lot of sense here either...

Credibility becomes an issue... Tulsa's Tax Vampires a.k.a.(those that have made City Government an economic engine for a percentage of Tulsa's creme de la creme) will only be dealt with by a cool head and a calm hand...

Metro Mikey is working you Bear...

So let's just sing a Spanish Battle Hymn and let go of the snake handlers... Jimmy Swaggert Look alikes....and Conchita Alvarez models looking to help the Bust Stop support Tulsa for one more year.  Look to the sun in the Western sky and wonder is that
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Cuban.jpg)

Pee Wee Herman or Ken Yazzel wanting the playground in the park down by the River.........?


[}:)]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 26, 2007, 07:39:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Rico

Bear..........You need to calm down just a bit....

Just like they won't let the opposing voice in the City Council rant and rave.... It doesn't make a lot of sense here either...

Credibility becomes an issue... Tulsa's Tax Vampires a.k.a.(those that have made City Government an economic engine for a percentage of Tulsa's creme de la creme) will only be dealt with by a cool head and a calm hand...

Metro Mikey is working you Bear...

So let's just sing a Spanish Battle Hymn and let go of the snake handlers... Jimmy Swaggert Look alikes....and Conchita Alvarez models looking to help the Bust Stop support Tulsa for one more year.  Look to the sun in the Western sky and wonder is that
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Cuban.jpg)

Pee Wee Herman or Ken Yazzel wanting the playground in the park down by the River.........?


[}:)]




Rico:  

THANK YOU for the Warning, but the Bear is in no danger of being baited.

In fact, Oklahoma Animal Cruelty Laws forbid the practice of Bear-Baiting.

Bear-Baiting is highly illegal in Oklahoma.

RM would NEVER do anything Illegal.

Coincidentally, did I mention my NO RIVER TAX Campaign Yard sign was missing this morning??

And I had that sucker a full 13' feet inside my residential yard curbline.

Measured it twice.

And, regarding the Tax Vampires, the old Tried-and-True remedy for Vampires:  

The sharpened wooden stake.  Along with a cool head and a calm hand....

[;)]


Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 26, 2007, 11:18:52 AM
He has stated that he DOES NOT TAKE SIGNS OUT OF YARDS, when I specifically asked him about the definition of YARD to include easements he replied "Our group does not go into residential yards to remove signs. We are completely a volunteer group who gets together and cleans commercial corridors."

That seems very clear to me.

and I thought you were in "Ramadi, Stay the Course
Iraq?"

Tell me where you live and I will do my best to personally get a Vote No sign and place it where ever you please in your hard then share a beer with you.  You can then set up a web cam and catch RM steeling your sign.

So where in this fine fair city do you live Cuddly Bear?
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 26, 2007, 11:22:45 AM
If you were really opinionated, you would have TWO signs.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Conan71 on September 26, 2007, 11:32:59 AM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

If you were really opinionated, you would have TWO signs.



I have four NO signs.  Two to neutralize Mr. Busby, two to get two more votes against. [:o)]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 26, 2007, 11:55:12 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

He has stated that he DOES NOT TAKE SIGNS OUT OF YARDS, when I specifically asked him about the definition of YARD to include easements he replied "Our group does not go into residential yards to remove signs. We are completely a volunteer group who gets together and cleans commercial corridors."

That seems very clear to me.

and I thought you were in "Ramadi, Stay the Course
Iraq?"

Tell me where you live and I will do my best to personally get a Vote No sign and place it where ever you please in your hard then share a beer with you.  You can then set up a web cam and catch RM steeling your sign.

So where in this fine fair city do you live Cuddly Bear?



Yard has not been defined.

I have an idea of what a yard is.  Cannon may have an idea what HIS yard is.

The Sign Gestapo I think have their own definition.

For instance, on south Harvard between 71st and 81st Streets, the "yards" stretch from the homes right to and directly touch Harvard.  

There are no curbs.

The residents think those are their yards.  Actually, part of what they are mowing and raking and watering is the city right of way.

At least for discussion purposes, the arbitrarily established last "12 feet from curbline" city right of way.

So, TECHNICALLY, a City Sign Bandit coming onto a "yard" is actually coming onto the city Right of Way to remove the sign.

The city can do about anything temporary that they want on their right of way.  They think they can remove signs from their right-of-way.

INCLUDING YOUR YARD.

They can also dig up the yard for new drainage or water lines.

They can pave it.

They can pile rocks or road material on it temporarily, meaning months.

And, they don't have to mow it or water it.

To add more fog and cloud up the issue of the City Sign Bandits, there are at least 3 distinct groups vacumning Vote NO signs.

1. RecycleMichael's volunteer organization, who when deployed during the 60 days prior to an election to vacumn Vote NO signs is a strategic campaign ploy to deny free speech to the Vote NO side, under the pretext of city beautification.  The remainder of the year they pick up commercial signage, and maybe a few handfuls of litter.

2.  Publik Werkes Department, who repeatedly vacumn signs, including those in neighborhoods, not JUST along the city medians.  Under orders of Mr. Charles Hardt, the man who made our streets what they are today.

3.  The Sign Inspection unit, who Councilor Martinet made sure was re-staffed and a budget re-created to staff formerly vacant positions for a hiberating city unit.

And, in all likelihood, in my estimation, there are anonymous people being recompensed by the Vote YES organization to pick up every Vote NO sign they see.  The Midnite to 6 a.m. creeps.  For an acknowledged sign bounty.

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: swake on September 26, 2007, 12:01:32 PM
Most of the signs I see that are "no" are in rights of way, most of the "yes" signs are in yards.  

And this yard stealing complaint makes no sense, why would someone from the yes campaign steal the signs out of yards and leave the ones all over town in the rights of way, where people actually see them?

Stealing a sign from someone's yard is a indication of anger and/or desperation. And all the anger and emotion on this issue that I have seen is on the "no" side of the fence.



I think some people may be fibbing....
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 26, 2007, 12:05:35 PM
Are you even reading the posts, specifically:

quote:
Just to clarify RM... when you say "never picked up signs our of a person's yard" do you mean out of any portion of what would commonly be referred to as a yard or specifically "non-easement" part of the yard?

If I had a sign 5 feet from the curb and my easement runs in 12, I would have a real problem with someone entering my property to remove that sign. No matter what it said.


to which RM replied:

quote:
Our group does not go into residential yards to remove signs. We are completely a volunteer group who gets together and cleans commercial corridors.



NO matter what you try to do, that's pretty clear.  Furthermore, the cities easement or right of way unto my property is still commonly referred to as my yard.  Their use of it is limited - they can not store whatever they want there as long as they desire (only certain circumstances).

That's clear.

One more time:


quote:
Just to clarify RM... when you say "never picked up signs our of a person's yard" do you mean out of any portion of what would commonly be referred to as a yard or specifically "non-easement" part of the yard?

If I had a sign 5 feet from the curb and my easement runs in 12, I would have a real problem with someone entering my property to remove that sign. No matter what it said.
Quote

to which RM replied:

QuoteOur group does not go into residential yards to remove signs. We are completely a volunteer group who gets together and cleans commercial corridors.


So either RM is lying or he is not, certainly he is being clear.

Still waiting for your invite to replace your sign.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 26, 2007, 12:10:18 PM
What turned you into a rabid Bear?

Please stop trying to define our group and lie about our motives and work. We have been picking up signs unrelated to elections. We don't work after midnight.

After all of this bravado, I am ready to call B.S.

I don't think you have had any signs stolen and are just making this up because of some persecution complex.

Do you even live in Tulsa?

Are you even really a Bear?
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 26, 2007, 12:15:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by swake

Most of the signs I see that are "no" are in rights of way, most of the "yes" signs are in yards.  

And this yard stealing complaint makes no sense, why would someone from the yes campaign steal the signs out of yards and leave the ones all over town in the rights of way, where people actually see them?

Stealing a sign from someone's yard is a indication of anger and/or desperation. And all the anger and emotion on this issue that I have seen is on the "no" side of the fence.



I think some people may be fibbing....


Well, the Vote Yes campaign does not need to use it workers to pick up Vote NO signs along the major thoroughfares.  

Reason being, RecycleMichael's volunteer organization does it for them on weekends, and the Publik Werkes department vacumns Vote NO signs Monday - Friday, although I expect Charles Hardt will approve their Overtime on the weekend before the Oct. 9 election, in a last-minute push to silence the Vote NO message.

Regarding the Vote Yes signs you see in residential yards, do you think some of those may be there if Kaiser's bank is forcing its Tulsa County residents to again have a Vote YES sign involuntarily placed in their yards, just like the bank required during the Vision 2025 campaign?

Furnishing each employees address to the Citizens for Tulsa County.  

Remember, that famous "Employee be getting a Vote Yes yard sign unless Employee hits the "Opt-Out" Intranet button."  I'll bet that was a LITTLE used Opt-Out Option?

Hmmmmmh??

Maybe BOKWerker can join in again, to clarify.

He/she should be on lunch break, now.

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 26, 2007, 12:25:37 PM
Someone place a "Vote for Kathy Taylor" sign in my yard during the last election.  I wasn't sure I wanted to vote for her... so I took it out.  I imagine most BOk workers are intelligent enough to figure out that course of action too.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 26, 2007, 12:27:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Are you even reading the posts, specifically:

quote:
Just to clarify RM... when you say "never picked up signs our of a person's yard" do you mean out of any portion of what would commonly be referred to as a yard or specifically "non-easement" part of the yard?

If I had a sign 5 feet from the curb and my easement runs in 12, I would have a real problem with someone entering my property to remove that sign. No matter what it said.


to which RM replied:

quote:
Our group does not go into residential yards to remove signs. We are completely a volunteer group who gets together and cleans commercial corridors.



NO matter what you try to do, that's pretty clear.  Furthermore, the cities easement or right of way unto my property is still commonly referred to as my yard.  Their use of it is limited - they can not store whatever they want there as long as they desire (only certain circumstances).

That's clear.

One more time:


quote:
Just to clarify RM... when you say "never picked up signs our of a person's yard" do you mean out of any portion of what would commonly be referred to as a yard or specifically "non-easement" part of the yard?

If I had a sign 5 feet from the curb and my easement runs in 12, I would have a real problem with someone entering my property to remove that sign. No matter what it said.
Quote

to which RM replied:

QuoteOur group does not go into residential yards to remove signs. We are completely a volunteer group who gets together and cleans commercial corridors.


So either RM is lying or he is not, certainly he is being clear.

Still waiting for your invite to replace your sign.



You can drop off my replacement NO RIVER TAX sign at the following address:

2121 South Columbia, Suite 103
Tulsa OK

Recycle certainly says he does not go into residential yards to vacumn Vote NO signs.

Recycle certainly says he does go into City Right of Way to vacumn Vote NO signs.

Both may be true statements.

When the residential signs are being vacumned off the homeowners property, the sign is being taken from the Right-of-Way........

 

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: bokworker on September 26, 2007, 12:39:23 PM
Ok, since I am OMLB (on my lunch break)... FB, I already clarified in another thread the change in strategy on the part of my employer as to the OPTION of being able to attain a sign to place in ones yard. And I thanked you personally for the fact that it had to have been your input that changed the minds of those that make these kinds of decisions for not placing the burden of that dreaded "opt-out" decision on us.
Nobody on this forum parses words the way you do... I find you to be more of a Paper Tiger than a Friendly Bear..
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 26, 2007, 12:44:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker

Ok, since I am OMLB (on my lunch break)... FB, I already clarified in another thread the change in strategy on the part of my employer as to the OPTION of being able to attain a sign to place in ones yard. And I thanked you personally for the fact that it had to have been your input that changed the minds of those that make these kinds of decisions for not placing the burden of that dreaded "opt-out" decision on us.
Nobody on this forum parses words the way you do... I find you to be more of a Paper Tiger than a Friendly Bear..



Oh yes, I remember now, we did cover this at length in a earlier Topic.  

My comment as I recall when you finally, belatedly, and wholly clarified to Oil Capital's laser-like query about the INVOLUNTARY nature of the Vote YES Vision 2025 sign placement in bank employee yards, was:

And the Truth Shall Set You Free.


Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: bokworker on September 26, 2007, 12:55:09 PM
Except for that pesky would/could definitional thing about the yard sign....You know, a sign "could" be placed in your yard (which is the way it read) vs. a sign "would" be placed in your yard.... d*mn word parsing.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 26, 2007, 01:08:09 PM
Why would I want to drop off a Vote No sign at Vote Yes campaign HQ?

I thought I made a reasonable offer.  I withdraw it as apparently the loss of the sign is not your real concern.  Assuming you lost a sign, or that you are in Tulsa for that matter.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 26, 2007, 01:23:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

What turned you into a rabid Bear?

Please stop trying to define our group and lie about our motives and work. We have been picking up signs unrelated to elections. We don't work after midnight.

After all of this bravado, I am ready to call B.S.

I don't think you have had any signs stolen and are just making this up because of some persecution complex.

Do you even live in Tulsa?

Are you even really a Bear?



No, I would never try to define what the earnest volunteers may be thinking they are doing to beautify Tulsa.  However, I do freely opine when I see they are being used for an ulterior objective, like Mr. Martinet's interest in sign enforcement and that hallowed city ordinance against "signs" on the City Right of Way.  Including what people just think are their residential yards.  

Vacumning Vote NO signs during tax election periods serves the interests of the local Tax Vampires just fine.  

And, at this juncture, based on your reactions, I expect you are not merely their dupe.

ANd, it's NOT stolen SIGNS.  ONE sign stolen so far out of my front yard.  Mr. Busby's the guy with TWO signs:  Vote YES signs.  

Yes, I do reside in the Banana Republic of Tulsa.

Yes, I am a Friendly Bear.

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 26, 2007, 01:30:57 PM
One favor and I'll leave this topic...

Please use this as your avatar.
(http://www.macmasters.com/demos/shopping_cart/images/bear_friend.gif)

Awesomeness.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 26, 2007, 01:32:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker

Except for that pesky would/could definitional thing about the yard sign....You know, a sign "could" be placed in your yard (which is the way it read) vs. a sign "would" be placed in your yard.... d*mn word parsing.



Thought that after Oil Capital flaying, you'd be the one to avoid word parsing on this subject.

The fact, to educate those unenlighted to this previous topic and to help them understand how things work in the Banana Republic of Tulsa, your bank executive management the during Vision 2025 campaign, informed employees:

--That the bank supported Vision 2025;  CORRECT?

--That a Vote Yes sign WOULD be placed in the Employees yard for those residing in Tulsa County; CORRECT? and,

--That if an employee did NOT want a Vote YES sign placed in their yard, they could click an OPT-OUT button.  CORRECT?

Uh-huh, just click that OPT-OUT button right after being told that executive management supported the new Tax.  CORRECT?

I HOPE that clarifies things.

[:O]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 26, 2007, 01:34:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by swake

Most of the signs I see that are "no" are in rights of way, most of the "yes" signs are in yards.  

And this yard stealing complaint makes no sense, why would someone from the yes campaign steal the signs out of yards and leave the ones all over town in the rights of way, where people actually see them?

Stealing a sign from someone's yard is a indication of anger and/or desperation. And all the anger and emotion on this issue that I have seen is on the "no" side of the fence.



I think some people may be fibbing....



I'm sure there are upset people on both sides of this issue.

The GREEDY ones, however, are on the VOTE YES side.  

Someone NEEDS TO FEED THEIR GREED.

[:X]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 26, 2007, 01:36:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Why would I want to drop off a Vote No sign at Vote Yes campaign HQ?

I thought I made a reasonable offer.  I withdraw it as apparently the loss of the sign is not your real concern.  Assuming you lost a sign, or that you are in Tulsa for that matter.



I can arrange for another.

I'm voting absentee from Ramadi this year.

Now, just taking a smoke break from cleaning the M249.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 26, 2007, 01:40:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

One favor and I'll leave this topic...

Please use this as your avatar.
(http://www.macmasters.com/demos/shopping_cart/images/bear_friend.gif)

Awesomeness.



I REALLY like the teddy bear. Unfortunately, it wasn't an offered Avatar when I enrolled in this Forum.

My current avatar has that, 'Je ne sais quoi',:

BRANDING.

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Vision 2025 on September 26, 2007, 01:42:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by bokworker

Except for that pesky would/could definitional thing about the yard sign....You know, a sign "could" be placed in your yard (which is the way it read) vs. a sign "would" be placed in your yard.... d*mn word parsing.



Thought that after Oil Capital flaying, you'd be the one to avoid word parsing on this subject.

The fact, to educate those unenlighted to this previous topic and to help them understand how things work in the Banana Republic of Tulsa, your bank executive management the during Vision 2025 campaign, informed employees:

--That the bank supported Vision 2025;  CORRECT?

--That a Vote Yes sign WOULD be placed in the Employees yard for those residing in Tulsa County; CORRECT? and,

--That if an employee did NOT want a Vote YES sign placed in their yard, they could click an OPT-OUT button.  CORRECT?

Uh-huh, just click that OPT-OUT button right after being told that executive management supported the new Tax.  CORRECT?

I HOPE that clarifies things.

[:O]

It clarifies that you seem obsessed with living in the past.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 26, 2007, 01:49:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025

quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by bokworker

Except for that pesky would/could definitional thing about the yard sign....You know, a sign "could" be placed in your yard (which is the way it read) vs. a sign "would" be placed in your yard.... d*mn word parsing.



Thought that after Oil Capital flaying, you'd be the one to avoid word parsing on this subject.

The fact, to educate those unenlighted to this previous topic and to help them understand how things work in the Banana Republic of Tulsa, your bank executive management the during Vision 2025 campaign, informed employees:

--That the bank supported Vision 2025;  CORRECT?

--That a Vote Yes sign WOULD be placed in the Employees yard for those residing in Tulsa County; CORRECT? and,

--That if an employee did NOT want a Vote YES sign placed in their yard, they could click an OPT-OUT button.  CORRECT?

Uh-huh, just click that OPT-OUT button right after being told that executive management supported the new Tax.  CORRECT?

I HOPE that clarifies things.

[:O]

It clarifies that you seem obsessed with living in the past.



The past frequenty foretells the future.

Regarding the past unethical employee coercion practices of certain bank executive management, maybe the past is repeating itself.

What are they serving for lunch downtown, lieburgers?

But, there are an awful lot of Vote YES yard signs scattered through the neighborhoods.

I wonder if the TPS employees union is trading favors with the Citizens for Tulsa County to provide TPS employee addresses for placement of Our River Yes yard signs?

In exchange for Citizens for Tulsa supporting the next TPS Bond election?

Is that genuine support, of merely favors-trading with the rest of us paying the bill.......?
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 26, 2007, 02:18:58 PM
I don't know if you are a polar bear, a grizzly bear or a sloth bear but you can imagine which one I think you are.

You know nothing of our volunteer effort. We don't just work weekends and we don't just pick up "no" signs.

Since others are being nice to you with avatars and such, I thought I would give you a bear joke...

This bear and this rabbit were talking.
The bear asked the rabbit, "Do you have trouble with poop sticking to your fur?"

The rabbit said, "No."

So the bear picked up the rabbit and used it to wipe his butt.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 26, 2007, 02:28:40 PM
More bear jokes...

A couple of hunters from Prague are out hunting, and an emormous bear runs up and in a single gulp devours one of the hunters. Miraculously, the swallowed hunter remained alive, trapped in the belly of the grizzly.
The other hunter runs back to town and organizes a rescue party which heads back to the woods armed with torches, guns, spears, etc.

Soon they spot two bears on the horizon and everybody starts shooting at the bear that's closest to them.

"No, not that one," shouts the surviving hunter, "That's the female."

"The Czech is in the male."


and this one...

One day a baby polar bear approaches his mother with a confused expression on his face and says, "Mom? Am I a polar bear?"
"Well of course son!"

The cub replied, "You're sure I'm not a panda bear or a black bear?"

"No, of course not. Now run outside and play."

But the baby polar bear is still confused so he approaches his father.

The cub asks, "Dad, am I a polar bear?"

"Why of course son!" the papa polar bear gruffly replies.

The cub continues, "I don't have any grizzly bear or Koala bear in my bloodlines?"

"No son. I'm a polar bear, your mother is a polar bear, and by god you too are one hundred percent purebred polar bear!! Why in the world do you ask?"

"Because I'm freezing my BUTT off!!"
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 26, 2007, 02:35:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

I don't know if you are a polar bear, a grizzly bear or a sloth bear but you can imagine which one I think you are.

You know nothing of our volunteer effort. We don't just work weekends and we don't just pick up "no" signs.

Since others are being nice to you with avatars and such, I thought I would give you a bear joke...

This bear and this rabbit were talking.
The bear asked the rabbit, "Do you have trouble with poop sticking to your fur?"

The rabbit said, "No."

So the bear picked up the rabbit and used it to wipe his butt.



That's a funny one.

Back on Topic, which is getting a lot of interest, and we had some really good interaction regarding Bledsoe, et al on the MORAL implications of supporting a Regressive Sales Tax Increase, the legality of church involvement in election issues, and the silence of our local church leaders thereof on the Kaiser River Tax issue, would any of our legions of poster or lurkers care to opine, and move us back on topic??


Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 26, 2007, 02:47:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

More bear jokes...

A couple of hunters from Prague are out hunting, and an emormous bear runs up and in a single gulp devours one of the hunters. Miraculously, the swallowed hunter remained alive, trapped in the belly of the grizzly.
The other hunter runs back to town and organizes a rescue party which heads back to the woods armed with torches, guns, spears, etc.

Soon they spot two bears on the horizon and everybody starts shooting at the bear that's closest to them.

"No, not that one," shouts the surviving hunter, "That's the female."

"The Czech is in the male."


and this one...

One day a baby polar bear approaches his mother with a confused expression on his face and says, "Mom? Am I a polar bear?"
"Well of course son!"

The cub replied, "You're sure I'm not a panda bear or a black bear?"

"No, of course not. Now run outside and play."

But the baby polar bear is still confused so he approaches his father.

The cub asks, "Dad, am I a polar bear?"

"Why of course son!" the papa polar bear gruffly replies.

The cub continues, "I don't have any grizzly bear or Koala bear in my bloodlines?"

"No son. I'm a polar bear, your mother is a polar bear, and by god you too are one hundred percent purebred polar bear!! Why in the world do you ask?"

"Because I'm freezing my BUTT off!!"




RecycleMichael is drifting dangerous close to transforming into Floyd's dreaded TROLL.

When I ASKED, in another topic, that if as reported that the Creek Nation reneges on their $5 million pledge for River Development, would that make them Indian Givers, Swake called it racist.

What is a person that hates bears?  It can't be called racist, because bears are not a race.  We're a species.  

Specious?



Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Conan71 on September 26, 2007, 02:58:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by swake

Most of the signs I see that are "no" are in rights of way, most of the "yes" signs are in yards.  

And this yard stealing complaint makes no sense, why would someone from the yes campaign steal the signs out of yards and leave the ones all over town in the rights of way, where people actually see them?

Stealing a sign from someone's yard is a indication of anger and/or desperation. And all the anger and emotion on this issue that I have seen is on the "no" side of the fence.



I think some people may be fibbing....



Really?  I haven't heard about Yes signs disappearing from yards.  I do think a vast "conspiracy" about a roving band of desperate "yessies" stealing signs is over-blown.  Not saying it hasn't happened, I just don't believe there is a concerted effort at sign stealing.

There are three vote no signs just down the block from one of the F & M branches.  If you believe a lot of the conspiracy crap being spread, you'd think those would have been mowed down already by mean-spirited F & M employees on their lunch break. [;)]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: rwarn17588 on September 26, 2007, 03:03:53 PM
Does a bear sh*t in the woods?

If so, offer it some toilet paper.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 26, 2007, 03:13:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by swake

Most of the signs I see that are "no" are in rights of way, most of the "yes" signs are in yards.  

And this yard stealing complaint makes no sense, why would someone from the yes campaign steal the signs out of yards and leave the ones all over town in the rights of way, where people actually see them?

Stealing a sign from someone's yard is a indication of anger and/or desperation. And all the anger and emotion on this issue that I have seen is on the "no" side of the fence.



I think some people may be fibbing....



Really?  I haven't heard about Yes signs disappearing from yards.  I do think a vast "conspiracy" about a roving band of desperate "yessies" stealing signs is over-blown.  Not saying it hasn't happened, I just don't believe there is a concerted effort at sign stealing.

There are three vote no signs just down the block from one of the F & M branches.  If you believe a lot of the conspiracy crap being spread, you'd think those would have been mowed down already by mean-spirited F & M employees on their lunch break. [;)]



Night attacks on Vote NO signs are their preferred silencing Stategy.  Otherwise, too many witnesses.......Otherwise,

Tonite, New on 6 reports with Eye-witness video of Vote NO signs vacumned from residential yards by Vote YES supporters?  

BAD publicity.

Daytime sign attacks are exclusively reserved for City of Tulsa Publik Werkes Dept., Sign Enforcement unit, and RecycleMichaels Pattonly Potential-Road-Kill Platoon.

Platoon motto:  

Help beautify Tulsa by stepping in front of a speeding Fire Truck.

Ouch!

[:D]

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 26, 2007, 03:15:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588

Does a bear sh*t in the woods?

If so, offer it some toilet paper.



Leaves are preferred.  

More organic.

Kinder to the environment.  

Rougher on the softer parts.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: waterboy on September 26, 2007, 03:36:33 PM
Okay, now I'm incensed. Just saw a schnauzer hike his leg on my Vote Yes sign! As everyone knows, only the rich, tax loving vampire types own this breed. What a great pic that would have made.

I drive all over the South Tulsa area from Jenks to Memorial, 71st to 121st. For the last month, it was packed with illegally planted Vote No signs at entrances to 169, Creek Expwy and Memorial as well as the entrances to the "oh so nice" hoods. Lately there has been a change. The illegal plantings of No's is now joined by the Yes's!! Right next to each other! The hoods are showing more and more yes's as well. This could be a horse race afterall.

For such a serious guy Bear, you make silly claims. Channel Six will welcome the silliness as that's in their mission statement.[;)]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 26, 2007, 03:56:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

Okay, now I'm incensed. Just saw a schnauzer hike his leg on my Vote Yes sign! As everyone knows, only the rich, tax loving vampire types own this breed. What a great pic that would have made.

I drive all over the South Tulsa area from Jenks to Memorial, 71st to 121st. For the last month, it was packed with illegally planted Vote No signs at entrances to 169, Creek Expwy and Memorial as well as the entrances to the "oh so nice" hoods. Lately there has been a change. The illegal plantings of No's is now joined by the Yes's!! Right next to each other! The hoods are showing more and more yes's as well. This could be a horse race afterall.

For such a serious guy Bear, you make silly claims. Channel Six will welcome the silliness as that's in their mission statement.[;)]



GOOD doggy!

Drink some more water.....
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Conan71 on September 26, 2007, 04:12:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

Okay, now I'm incensed. Just saw a schnauzer hike his leg on my Vote Yes sign! As everyone knows, only the rich, tax loving vampire types own this breed. What a great pic that would have made.

I drive all over the South Tulsa area from Jenks to Memorial, 71st to 121st. For the last month, it was packed with illegally planted Vote No signs at entrances to 169, Creek Expwy and Memorial as well as the entrances to the "oh so nice" hoods. Lately there has been a change. The illegal plantings of No's is now joined by the Yes's!! Right next to each other! The hoods are showing more and more yes's as well. This could be a horse race afterall.

For such a serious guy Bear, you make silly claims. Channel Six will welcome the silliness as that's in their mission statement.[;)]



Sorry Waterboy, my schnauzer is really against this tax.  I ask him not to deface signs, but he's just very, very adamant... and a poor sport. [;)]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 26, 2007, 07:12:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

Okay, now I'm incensed. Just saw a schnauzer hike his leg on my Vote Yes sign! As everyone knows, only the rich, tax loving vampire types own this breed. What a great pic that would have made.

I drive all over the South Tulsa area from Jenks to Memorial, 71st to 121st. For the last month, it was packed with illegally planted Vote No signs at entrances to 169, Creek Expwy and Memorial as well as the entrances to the "oh so nice" hoods. Lately there has been a change. The illegal plantings of No's is now joined by the Yes's!! Right next to each other! The hoods are showing more and more yes's as well. This could be a horse race afterall.

For such a serious guy Bear, you make silly claims. Channel Six will welcome the silliness as that's in their mission statement.[;)]



Sorry Waterboy, my schnauzer is really against this tax.  I ask him not to deface signs, but he's just very, very adamant... and a poor sport. [;)]



Waterboy could ELECTRIFY his Vote Yes Sign.

That would break Fido of his bad habit.

[:P]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: waterboy on September 26, 2007, 07:21:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

Okay, now I'm incensed. Just saw a schnauzer hike his leg on my Vote Yes sign! As everyone knows, only the rich, tax loving vampire types own this breed. What a great pic that would have made.

I drive all over the South Tulsa area from Jenks to Memorial, 71st to 121st. For the last month, it was packed with illegally planted Vote No signs at entrances to 169, Creek Expwy and Memorial as well as the entrances to the "oh so nice" hoods. Lately there has been a change. The illegal plantings of No's is now joined by the Yes's!! Right next to each other! The hoods are showing more and more yes's as well. This could be a horse race afterall.

For such a serious guy Bear, you make silly claims. Channel Six will welcome the silliness as that's in their mission statement.[;)]



Sorry Waterboy, my schnauzer is really against this tax.  I ask him not to deface signs, but he's just very, very adamant... and a poor sport. [;)]



You can't "ask" a schnauzer to do anything. You can beg, yell, whistle and honk. They just look at you as if to say..."make me".[:D]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 26, 2007, 07:35:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

Okay, now I'm incensed. Just saw a schnauzer hike his leg on my Vote Yes sign! As everyone knows, only the rich, tax loving vampire types own this breed. What a great pic that would have made.

I drive all over the South Tulsa area from Jenks to Memorial, 71st to 121st. For the last month, it was packed with illegally planted Vote No signs at entrances to 169, Creek Expwy and Memorial as well as the entrances to the "oh so nice" hoods. Lately there has been a change. The illegal plantings of No's is now joined by the Yes's!! Right next to each other! The hoods are showing more and more yes's as well. This could be a horse race afterall.

For such a serious guy Bear, you make silly claims. Channel Six will welcome the silliness as that's in their mission statement.[;)]



Sorry Waterboy, my schnauzer is really against this tax.  I ask him not to deface signs, but he's just very, very adamant... and a poor sport. [;)]



You can't "ask" a schnauzer to do anything. You can beg, yell, whistle and honk. They just look at you as if to say..."make me".[:D]



ELECTRICITY is a good persuader.

Negative Reinforcement every time Fido hikes his leg.

Invented at Tucker Prison Farm, Tucker, ARKANSAS:  An old crank telephone hooked up to misbehavin' prisoners.

Remember Robt. Redford's BRUBAKER?

Actually, the device nicknamed the Tucker Telephone.  

The warder's dreaded prisoner admonition:

"PHONE CALL.......".


LONG distance calls were especially dreaded.

Refined at prisons ALL across the U.S.:

The handy little TASER on stun mode.  

Inflict infinite, excruciating pain while leaving no evidence of abuse.  

How HANDY!

Maybe MH2010 will drop by and loan you his Taser for Fido's obediance training.

Further refined at Abu Graib and Gitmo.  No evidence of mistreatment left behind, except the zombie prisoner.

Delivered along with Sensory deprivation, Sleep deprivation, and waterboarding.  Cracks even the strongest recalcitrant like an egg.  

Ask Mr. Jose Padilla's defense team.  He's a piece of furniture after three years of solitary confinement, sensory deprivation, and sleep deprivation.  

VERY interesting court filings were made in trying to get the case thrown out, claiming "Outrageous Conduct" on behalf of our Government.

http://www.discourse.net/archives/docs/Padilla_Outrageous_Government_Conduct.pdf

WHERE is the moral outrage?

Back in the U.S.,
Back in the U.S.,

Back in the U.S.S.R.

[:O]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: sgrizzle on September 27, 2007, 07:44:30 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear


ELECTRICITY is a good persuader.

Negative Reinforcement every time Fido hikes his leg.

Invented at Tucker Prison Farm, Tucker, ARKANSAS:  An old crank telephone hooked up to misbehavin' prisoners.

Remember Robt. Redford's BRUBAKER?

Actually, the device nicknamed the Tucker Telephone.  

The warder's dreaded prisoner admonition:

"PHONE CALL.......".


LONG distance calls were especially dreaded.

Refined at prisons ALL across the U.S.:

The handy little TASER on stun mode.  

Inflict infinite, excruciating pain while leaving no evidence of abuse.  

How HANDY!

Maybe MH2010 will drop by and loan you his Taser for Fido's obediance training.

Further refined at Abu Graib and Gitmo.  No evidence of mistreatment left behind, except the zombie prisoner.

Delivered along with Sensory deprivation, Sleep deprivation, and waterboarding.  Cracks even the strongest recalcitrant like an egg.  

Ask Mr. Jose Padilla's defense team.  He's a piece of furniture after three years of solitary confinement, sensory deprivation, and sleep deprivation.  

VERY interesting court filings were made in trying to get the case thrown out, claiming "Outrageous Conduct" on behalf of our Government.

http://www.discourse.net/archives/docs/Padilla_Outrageous_Government_Conduct.pdf

WHERE is the moral outrage?

Back in the U.S.,
Back in the U.S.,

Back in the U.S.S.R.

[:O]



WHA?!?

(http://www.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/4/5/2/small/254629.jpg)
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 27, 2007, 08:24:02 AM
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear


ELECTRICITY is a good persuader.

Negative Reinforcement every time Fido hikes his leg.

Invented at Tucker Prison Farm, Tucker, ARKANSAS:  An old crank telephone hooked up to misbehavin' prisoners.

Remember Robt. Redford's BRUBAKER?

Actually, the device nicknamed the Tucker Telephone.  

The warder's dreaded prisoner admonition:

"PHONE CALL.......".


LONG distance calls were especially dreaded.

Refined at prisons ALL across the U.S.:

The handy little TASER on stun mode.  

Inflict infinite, excruciating pain while leaving no evidence of abuse.  

How HANDY!

Maybe MH2010 will drop by and loan you his Taser for Fido's obediance training.

Further refined at Abu Graib and Gitmo.  No evidence of mistreatment left behind, except the zombie prisoner.

Delivered along with Sensory deprivation, Sleep deprivation, and waterboarding.  Cracks even the strongest recalcitrant like an egg.  

Ask Mr. Jose Padilla's defense team.  He's a piece of furniture after three years of solitary confinement, sensory deprivation, and sleep deprivation.  

VERY interesting court filings were made in trying to get the case thrown out, claiming "Outrageous Conduct" on behalf of our Government.

http://www.discourse.net/archives/docs/Padilla_Outrageous_Government_Conduct.pdf

WHERE is the moral outrage?

Back in the U.S.,
Back in the U.S.,

Back in the U.S.S.R.

[:O]



WHA?!?

(http://www.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/4/5/2/small/254629.jpg)



A mathematical equation may be useful in associating what appear on the surface to be dissimilar topics in this one posting:

The Kaiser River Tax
-
No River Tax Signs Disappearing
+
Our River Tax Signs irrigated by Fido
-
Obediance Training for Fido using Electricity
+
Obediance Training for U.S. Prisoners using Electricity
+
Moral Conundrum of the use of electricity to Torture Prisoners
+
Moral conundrum using torture on prisoners in general
+
Humming the Beatles tune, "Back in the U.S.S.R."
=
Moral conundrum of Supporting a Regressive Sales Tax which Hurts Tulsa's Poor.

Does that help make it any clearer?

[;)]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 27, 2007, 11:01:52 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Daytime sign attacks are exclusively reserved for City of Tulsa Publik Werkes Dept., Sign Enforcement unit, and RecycleMichaels Pattonly Potential-Road-Kill Platoon.

Platoon motto:  
Help beautify Tulsa by stepping in front of a speeding Fire Truck.
Ouch!


Are you wishing harm to me and our volunteers?

You seem to really want to be a victim here.

I still think that you are making all this up. I don't think you have had any signs stolen,and if they have been, it is probably by a neighbor who dislikes your bear ways.

You still haven't answered the question...are you even in Tulsa right now?
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 27, 2007, 11:14:44 AM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Daytime sign attacks are exclusively reserved for City of Tulsa Publik Werkes Dept., Sign Enforcement unit, and RecycleMichaels Pattonly Potential-Road-Kill Platoon.

Platoon motto:  
Help beautify Tulsa by stepping in front of a speeding Fire Truck.
Ouch!



Are you wishing harm to me and our volunteers?

You seem to really want to be a victim here.

I still think that you are making all this up. I don't think you have had any signs stolen,and if they have been, it is probably by a neighbor who dislikes your bear ways.

You still haven't answered the question...are you even in Tulsa right now?



Just if any of the ugly volunteers steps in front of a passing Tulsa Fire Truck, that too is city beautification.

It was meant jocularly, of course.

I wish no harm to befall your volunteers.

Absolutely NONE.  

Although, in a perverse sense of justice, the image of self-annointed do-gooders vacumning Vote NO campaign signs getting flattened by a careening 30-ton City Fire Truck does hold some macabre fascination, for some unfathomable reason.....

Therefore, Safety First.  All should tread very carefully in that bar ditch, roadway or median.  It is very dangerous.  

Uh, the city does provide medical insurance for your volunteers, right?

One solitary driver's inattentive moment, dialing their cell phone, could be a tragedy for your volunteers.  

The volunteers are practically on a suicide mission, as many of our suburban two-lane arterial streets, really former county farm-to-market roads, lack even a basic CURB or SIDEWALK to protect pedestrians. And, just bar ditches for drainage.

It's another example of the TULSA PREMIUM, because our rich local, ruling Oligarchy land owners, and the developers have been getting a free ride on city arterial development for about the past 40 years, and the rest of the citizenry has been paying for their greed for the past 27 years:  

The Itty Bitty Third Penny Sales Tax.

Other news:

Current Location:  Ramadi,Irak.

Current Activity:  Cleaning the M249, again.

Voting Status:  Absentee

Housing Status:  Hibernation mode.

NO RIVER TAX Yard Sign Status:  M.I.A.

[8D]

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Double A on September 27, 2007, 11:15:36 AM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Daytime sign attacks are exclusively reserved for City of Tulsa Publik Werkes Dept., Sign Enforcement unit, and RecycleMichaels Pattonly Potential-Road-Kill Platoon.

Platoon motto:  
Help beautify Tulsa by stepping in front of a speeding Fire Truck.
Ouch!


Are you wishing harm to me and our volunteers?

You seem to really want to be a victim here.

I still think that you are making all this up. I don't think you have had any signs stolen,and if they have been, it is probably by a neighbor who dislikes your bear ways.

You still haven't answered the question...are you even in Tulsa right now?



Only Kathy Taylor gets to play the victim in Spincyle's whirled.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: chesty on September 28, 2007, 03:01:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

Okay, now I'm incensed. Just saw a schnauzer hike his leg on my Vote Yes sign! As everyone knows, only the rich, tax loving vampire types own this breed. What a great pic that would have made.

I drive all over the South Tulsa area from Jenks to Memorial, 71st to 121st. For the last month, it was packed with illegally planted Vote No signs at entrances to 169, Creek Expwy and Memorial as well as the entrances to the "oh so nice" hoods. Lately there has been a change. The illegal plantings of No's is now joined by the Yes's!! Right next to each other! The hoods are showing more and more yes's as well. This could be a horse race afterall.

For such a serious guy Bear, you make silly claims. Channel Six will welcome the silliness as that's in their mission statement.[;)]



The thing that happened is the date.

Usually 2 weeks before an election a defacto hands off policy goes into effect and the city stops picking up signs from rights-of-way.  Kindof a free speech gentleman's agreement thing.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: waterboy on September 28, 2007, 03:30:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chesty

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

Okay, now I'm incensed. Just saw a schnauzer hike his leg on my Vote Yes sign! As everyone knows, only the rich, tax loving vampire types own this breed. What a great pic that would have made.

I drive all over the South Tulsa area from Jenks to Memorial, 71st to 121st. For the last month, it was packed with illegally planted Vote No signs at entrances to 169, Creek Expwy and Memorial as well as the entrances to the "oh so nice" hoods. Lately there has been a change. The illegal plantings of No's is now joined by the Yes's!! Right next to each other! The hoods are showing more and more yes's as well. This could be a horse race afterall.

For such a serious guy Bear, you make silly claims. Channel Six will welcome the silliness as that's in their mission statement.[;)]



The thing that happened is the date.

Usually 2 weeks before an election a defacto hands off policy goes into effect and the city stops picking up signs from rights-of-way.  Kindof a free speech gentleman's agreement thing.



This thing was decided in the first two weeks. Any sign advertising or sign shenanigans is pointless by now. I think we're all waiting for someone to "go Gundy" on the thing in public to change any minds.[:D]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 28, 2007, 04:04:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chesty

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

Okay, now I'm incensed. Just saw a schnauzer hike his leg on my Vote Yes sign! As everyone knows, only the rich, tax loving vampire types own this breed. What a great pic that would have made.

I drive all over the South Tulsa area from Jenks to Memorial, 71st to 121st. For the last month, it was packed with illegally planted Vote No signs at entrances to 169, Creek Expwy and Memorial as well as the entrances to the "oh so nice" hoods. Lately there has been a change. The illegal plantings of No's is now joined by the Yes's!! Right next to each other! The hoods are showing more and more yes's as well. This could be a horse race afterall.

For such a serious guy Bear, you make silly claims. Channel Six will welcome the silliness as that's in their mission statement.[;)]



The thing that happened is the date.

Usually 2 weeks before an election a defacto hands off policy goes into effect and the city stops picking up signs from rights-of-way.  Kindof a free speech gentleman's agreement thing.



Maybe there is the hands-off practice in CANDIDATE Elections.

In elections involving raising or renewing Sales or Property taxes, the Tax Vampires are using every way possible to vacumn Vote NO campaign signs.

Includin using RecycleMichael's well-intentioned dopes as dupes.
[:P]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 28, 2007, 06:14:58 PM
Our group has already stopped.

It is a good time to take a break.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 28, 2007, 07:26:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

Our group has already stopped.

It is a good time to take a break.



Stopped when, and until when?

[?]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: tim huntzinger on October 01, 2007, 04:35:36 PM
Here is an interesting press release: Subject:   River Tax, Other Issues Plaguing Our City

Location:   Sunday, October 7th, 2007 @  3 p.m., Rudisill Library, 1520 North Hartford, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Forum:   The public is invited.  Come out and let your voice be heard, your opinion be known on the "River Tax" and other critical issues plaguing our City.  Everyone is welcome.  Yes supporters!  No supporters!  

Guest
Speakers:   Jack Henderson, Roscoe Turner, David O'Connor, Senator Judy Eason McIntyre, Representative Jabar Shumate, Senator Randy Brogdon, Bishop L. V. Broom, Reverend Warren Blakely

Invitation:   All Ministers and Ministerial Alliance Members

Contact:   Sharon Hanson @ 918-361-5471 or 918-853-9771

Think about that: 'plaguing.'
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Townsend on October 01, 2007, 05:51:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger

Here is an interesting press release: Subject:   River Tax, Other Issues Plaguing Our City

Location:   Sunday, October 7th, 2007 @  3 p.m., Rudisill Library, 1520 North Hartford, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Forum:   The public is invited.  Come out and let your voice be heard, your opinion be known on the "River Tax" and other critical issues plaguing our City.  Everyone is welcome.  Yes supporters!  No supporters!  

Guest
Speakers:   Jack Henderson, Roscoe Turner, David O'Connor, Senator Judy Eason McIntyre, Representative Jabar Shumate, Senator Randy Brogdon, Bishop L. V. Broom, Reverend Warren Blakely

Invitation:   All Ministers and Ministerial Alliance Members

Contact:   Sharon Hanson @ 918-361-5471 or 918-853-9771

Think about that: 'plaguing.'



Seems balanced
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: tim huntzinger on October 01, 2007, 08:58:01 PM
But 'plaguing'? I mean, a pox on you and your house for bringing this to our community?  A vile, murderous, pointless pandemic, a killing plague? With all the other problems going on in the neighborhood, this tax is roughly seen as on par with them or at least as divisive.  So, there you have it FB, the Church (or at least some member thereof - most likely the brain) has heard your plea.

Still, it should be nice to see how the congenial State Representative holds up against the Councilors.  Hope someone is there to video the event for the internets and show the whole thing C-Spanesque-like - it is going to get crazy on up in there!
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Townsend on October 02, 2007, 10:03:55 AM
Sorry Tim, that was sarcasm about the balanced thing.  I was trying to show some Fox News love.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: tim huntzinger on October 02, 2007, 11:57:44 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend

Sorry Tim, that was sarcasm about the balanced thing.  I was trying to show some Fox News love.



Har har! I thought you meant BC Jabar Shumate (sic?) was going to be there.  I hope no one gets into a babyish shouting match and needs to have their hand held to calm them down.

Wonder if this lawsuit (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071002_1__Three07533%22) is why Richard Roberts has kept his trap shut on the issue.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: cks511 on October 02, 2007, 01:55:27 PM
Well, they were under orders to be for randi....i'm so surprised.NOT!  ORU undergrad here, back in the 70's.  They need to get Patty as a character witness...LOL

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/1007/460308.html

as reported much earlier by:

http://www.batesline.com/archives/002369.html
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Im calling you out on October 03, 2007, 12:01:26 AM
ORU just showed us why not to get involved it is against there non-profit standing.  Remember the last electioin?  Church's where going to invite speakers across the nation to pray for the President and the IRS sent information to the churches that the meetings where against there non-profit standing's?
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: cannon_fodder on October 03, 2007, 08:24:26 AM
No, Churches can pray for whomever they like.  Such is NOT against their non-profit standing.  They may not, however, advocate specifically for a political candidate.  They can advocate positions (remember to vote for whichever candidate you think will put an end to abortion) as a matter of religious freedom, but advocating for a candidate is specific political speech and not a matter of religious conviction.  As such, its subject to different tax laws.

/not my OPINION, that is the IRS position.

I'm interested to see how the ORU thing unfolds, I have not gotten details yet (for another thread).
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on October 03, 2007, 12:40:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger

Here is an interesting press release: Subject:   River Tax, Other Issues Plaguing Our City

Location:   Sunday, October 7th, 2007 @  3 p.m., Rudisill Library, 1520 North Hartford, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Forum:   The public is invited.  Come out and let your voice be heard, your opinion be known on the "River Tax" and other critical issues plaguing our City.  Everyone is welcome.  Yes supporters!  No supporters!  

Guest
Speakers:   Jack Henderson, Roscoe Turner, David O'Connor, Senator Judy Eason McIntyre, Representative Jabar Shumate, Senator Randy Brogdon, Bishop L. V. Broom, Reverend Warren Blakely

Invitation:   All Ministers and Ministerial Alliance Members

Contact:   Sharon Hanson @ 918-361-5471 or 918-853-9771

Think about that: 'plaguing.'



Well, that's certainly a START with some of our local Religious Leaders speaking out on this new Regressive Kaiser River Sales Tax.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: tim huntzinger on October 04, 2007, 12:05:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cks511

Well, they were under orders to be for randi....i'm so surprised.NOT!  ORU undergrad here, back in the 70's.  They need to get Patty as a character witness...LOL

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/1007/460308.html

as reported much earlier by:

http://www.batesline.com/archives/002369.html



That an email was originated by Brooker may have been mentioned, but the much more scandalous aspect of this is that the RNC essentially paid ORU for this endorsement and its institutional help getting candidates elected in other states.

Say, how many ORU grads have been elected recently? Eagleton, Carter, Harris, Westcott to name a few.  Sayyyy, was there not an ORU grad in the County Chair position recently?

This is the same type of culture of corruption crap that brought down the GOP in '06.
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: swake on October 04, 2007, 12:30:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

Let us know what your pastor/rabbi/minister says tomorrow.

Do they preach politics before the snake handling or after?



It depends on the temperature that the cold-blooded reptile has been refrigerated at.

[Edited]

C-A-R-E-F-U-L.

Such ANGER in one of God's Creatures.

Practice Love.  

Practice Peace.  

Practice Love of Your Fellow Man.

Vote NO October 9, For the Children!  
[B)]





Bear, I can feel the love.

I don't know, should I say "Screw you and your name calling personal attack", or not? Hmmmm?  Decisions, decisions.

It's all good.



Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on October 04, 2007, 01:19:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by swake


Bear, I can feel the love.

I don't know, should I say [Edited]or not? Hmmmm?  Decisions, decisions.

It's all good.







Oh great leader of mine, a.k.a. Swake, you've committed a sanctionable personal attack.

Forum Gestapo, go do your job, and silence Mr. Swake!

My harmless riposte to Mr. Recyclemichael's vile reference as to whether my church performed snake-handling.....

Do they preach politics before the snake handling or after?

.....prompted your inclusion in my mild riposte.

If users wish to reveal their identity they may do so.  Other users may not.

- Moderator


Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Friendly Bear on October 04, 2007, 02:14:02 PM
[Moderation is free for all forum members. 2-for-1 special, today only.]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: swake on October 04, 2007, 03:31:02 PM
I have no problem with what I posted being edited,

However,

This is a personal attack, and should not be tolerated if my post was not:

[Taken care of]

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: Im calling you out on October 05, 2007, 12:50:39 AM
You can find your answer in the Holy Bible somewhere around Mark 12:13-17
13Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14They came to him and said, "Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? 15Should we pay or shouldn't we?"
  But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it." 16They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
     "Caesar's," they replied.

17Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: rwarn17588 on October 05, 2007, 02:23:58 AM
Thanks for clearing that up. [}:)]

Does God take cash, check or debit cards? [}:)]
Title: Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?
Post by: cannon_fodder on October 05, 2007, 09:36:50 AM
quote:
Does God take...debit cards?


And how!

(http://www.datejesus.com/card/jesuscard1.gif)