The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Not At My Table - Political Discussions => Local & State Politics => Topic started by: Admin on May 22, 2013, 01:35:45 PM

Title: TulsaNow Questions the Candidates
Post by: Admin on May 22, 2013, 01:35:45 PM
TulsaNow surveyed the candidates for the upcoming Mayor's election. Dewey Bartlett chose not to answer.

https://tulsanow.org/wp/index.php/2013/05/tulsanow-questions-the-candidates/
Title: Re: TulsaNow Questions the Candidates
Post by: sgrizzle on May 22, 2013, 02:14:05 PM
Bill's answers are short, and I don't understand his answer on benefits. Kinda surprised of his answers on bike lanes and downtown teardowns.

Wish Dewey had responded as it's easier for the two outside people to say they can fix things whereas the guy already there has to explain why he needs a second term to do his/her job effectively.

Title: Re: TulsaNow Questions the Candidates
Post by: RecycleMichael on May 22, 2013, 02:15:47 PM
I too am disappointed that the Bartlett campaign failed to answer. Did they lose it or just refuse to answer? Did you give them any reminders?
Title: Re: TulsaNow Questions the Candidates
Post by: Gaspar on May 22, 2013, 02:18:47 PM
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 22, 2013, 02:15:47 PM
I too am disappointed that the Bartlett campaign failed to answer. Did they lose it or just refuse to answer? Did you give them any reminders?

Perhaps it was emailed to Dewey's phone?
Title: Re: TulsaNow Questions the Candidates
Post by: Hoss on May 22, 2013, 02:44:30 PM
Quote from: Gaspar on May 22, 2013, 02:18:47 PM
Perhaps it was emailed to Dewey's phone?

(http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_121/11714241507Bu18E.jpg)
Title: Re: TulsaNow Questions the Candidates
Post by: carltonplace on May 22, 2013, 03:01:20 PM
Candidate 1: Didn't answer
Candidate 2: Barely answered
Candidate 3: Over answered

Former Mayor Taylor's answers were cogent and thorough though not quite concise. She obviously knows the drill.
Title: Re: TulsaNow Questions the Candidates
Post by: JCnOwasso on May 23, 2013, 11:20:19 AM
Question 7 from Christiansen is rather odd... Either he is refering to himself in the 3rd person or he didn't answer that specific question...
Title: Re: TulsaNow Questions the Candidates
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 23, 2013, 12:06:08 PM
Dewey feels he doesn't have to answer since he is entitled to be mayor.  And sadly, will probably win again, showing just how far Tulsa has declined.....


Parks...wonderful resource.  Maybe they could do a clean up of some of the drug activities at McClure....

Title: Re: TulsaNow Questions the Candidates
Post by: Townsend on May 23, 2013, 12:48:48 PM
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 23, 2013, 12:06:08 PM
And sadly, will probably win again,


Not a chance
Title: Re: TulsaNow Questions the Candidates
Post by: Conan71 on May 23, 2013, 01:49:18 PM
Christiansen isn't gay married but he's not a hater, basically.
Title: Re: TulsaNow Questions the Candidates
Post by: JCnOwasso on May 23, 2013, 02:43:03 PM
Quote from: JCnOwasso on May 23, 2013, 11:20:19 AM
Question 7 from Christiansen is rather odd... Either he is refering to himself in the 3rd person or he didn't answer that specific question...

Perhaps JCnOwasso should clarify... the rest of his answers were either "I" or "We" (The Royal We)... until question 7.  "Bill Christiansen does not descriminate against anyone"... "Bill practices marriage from the Biblical meaning..."  question 8 moves back to "I".  It is very odd to write in one method and then convert for a single question. 

It just stood out to me.
Title: Re:
Post by: Hoss on May 23, 2013, 03:17:14 PM
Quote from: JCnOwasso on May 23, 2013, 02:43:03 PM
Perhaps JCnOwasso should clarify... the rest of his answers were either "I" or "We" (The Royal We)... until question 7.  "Bill Christiansen does not descriminate against anyone"... "Bill practices marriage from the Biblical meaning..."  question 8 moves back to "I".  It is very odd to write in one method and then convert for a single question. 

It just stood out to me.

Maybe he was watching the Rock on WWE Raw lately?
Title: Re: TulsaNow Questions the Candidates
Post by: Gaspar on May 23, 2013, 04:00:34 PM
Quote from: JCnOwasso on May 23, 2013, 02:43:03 PM
Perhaps JCnOwasso should clarify... the rest of his answers were either "I" or "We" (The Royal We)... until question 7.  "Bill Christiansen does not descriminate against anyone"... "Bill practices marriage from the Biblical meaning..."  question 8 moves back to "I".  It is very odd to write in one method and then convert for a single question.  

It just stood out to me.

Nice catch.  Illeism (speaking in the third person) is typically used as a method of distancing oneself from a statement or inflating a position.  It's a subconscious disconnect from the recognition that what you are saying is your own.

From a psychological standpoint one could infer that choosing to transition to 3rd person is similar to saying This is not what "I" understand to be true, however this is the position I want "you" to believe.

It's basically a method of verbally self-publishing what you want others to believe about you.

Very odd indeed.

. . .or perhaps he had his attorney answer that one?
Title: Re: TulsaNow Questions the Candidates
Post by: TheArtist on May 23, 2013, 09:29:51 PM
 What does "Bill practices marriage from the biblical meaning" (guessing that he doesn't mean he got his wife, or wives by trading them for a camel and two chickens), have to do with extending benefits to same-sex partners?  I am happy, and do support, that he is able to get married as he wishes and is able to have that wonderful, beautiful relationship and that his wife and family would get "benefits" if he were a city employee... but again, not sure what he is saying here about extending benefits to sam-sex partners?
Title: Re: TulsaNow Questions the Candidates
Post by: sgrizzle on May 23, 2013, 10:05:42 PM
The answer to question 7 was submitted separate than the rest of the survey responses, I believe that is why the wording is different.
Title: Re: TulsaNow Questions the Candidates
Post by: Gaspar on May 24, 2013, 07:25:08 AM
Quote from: sgrizzle on May 23, 2013, 10:05:42 PM
The answer to question 7 was submitted separate than the rest of the survey responses, I believe that is why the wording is different.

Grizzle,
Do you mean that the question was provided to the candidate after the others, or that the candidate took additional time and consideration to submit a response?

If it was the latter, than perhaps my jest in assuming legal counsel was involved may actually be the case.

All of the other questions seem to be "Campaign" style questions that a politician can employ a great deal of creativity and BS in answering, however question #7 has significant political implications for the politician in the eyes of what he believes to be his constituency.  I am willing to bet that answer was carefully crafted by more heads than just that of the candidate.  Again, use of the third person gives him the ability to state a general position without offering a personal opinion or addressing the direct question.

Artist,
His answer is a typical crafted political statement that fails to answer the question.  That is the sad point.  It seems that Mr. Christiansen has clearly identified his constituency, and is being very cautious to align himself with them.

It is increasingly clear that I have no dog in this hunt.  The choice is between two poor candidates and a lackluster incumbent. 
All of their slogans should be Keep Tulsa The Same!
Title: Re: TulsaNow Questions the Candidates
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 24, 2013, 08:40:44 AM
Quote from: TheArtist on May 23, 2013, 09:29:51 PM
What does "Bill practices marriage from the biblical meaning" (guessing that he doesn't mean he got his wife, or wives by trading them for a camel and two chickens), have to do with extending benefits to same-sex partners?  I am happy, and do support, that he is able to get married as he wishes and is able to have that wonderful, beautiful relationship and that his wife and family would get "benefits" if he were a city employee... but again, not sure what he is saying here about extending benefits to sam-sex partners?


He is "non-answering" with as many weasle words as possible.  He knows that would be the kiss of death to his campaign here if he came out and said outright, yeah, he is for equal treatment!  I like what little I have seen about him, but that certainly puts a fine point on where his cowardice starts....and I also don't blame him for that here in Okrahoma.


(I just want someone from the anti-rights crowd to tell me why gays shouldn't be subject to the same 'self-abuse' of marriage, that the rest of us enjoy....?)




Title: Re: TulsaNow Questions the Candidates
Post by: Gaspar on May 24, 2013, 09:33:55 AM
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 24, 2013, 08:40:44 AM


(I just want someone from the anti-rights crowd to tell me why gays shouldn't be subject to the same 'self-abuse' of marriage, that the rest of us enjoy....?)


That is an interesting point.  A gay couple can breakup and walk away, but a hetero couple faces years of court battle, attorneys, and paperwork.  Even an amicable divorce requires thousands of dollars of legal fees and document filing.

I think it would be far better to do away the the government's involvement in relationships all together.  These are contracts between individuals.  As for benefits and privacy laws, we stepped in that when we created the dependency on our employers to be our healthcare providers, and the government to be a paternal overseer, educator, and caregiver to our children.

The tangle is quite deep.
(http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/07/14/Headphone.jpg)
Title: Re: TulsaNow Questions the Candidates
Post by: RecycleMichael on May 24, 2013, 09:42:17 AM
Back to the candidate answers...

I wonder the reason the Bartlett campaign didn't provide answers. Do they just think TulsaNow should be ignored? They would clearly respond if another media asked them questions. Do they not respect TulsaNow?
Title: Re: TulsaNow Questions the Candidates
Post by: Townsend on May 24, 2013, 10:30:12 AM
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 24, 2013, 09:42:17 AM
Back to the candidate answers...

I wonder the reason the Bartlett campaign didn't provide answers. Do they just think TulsaNow should be ignored? They would clearly respond if another media asked them questions. Do they not respect TulsaNow?

There's a possibility that someone on his campaign has taken a gander at TulsaNow and came to the conclusion that there was no way Bartlett would get a fair shake on here.

Just a guess.

I know I've been less than positive in my posts about his job on here.
Title: Re: TulsaNow Questions the Candidates
Post by: sgrizzle on May 26, 2013, 07:22:33 PM
Quote from: Gaspar on May 24, 2013, 07:25:08 AM
Grizzle,
Do you mean that the question was provided to the candidate after the others, or that the candidate took additional time and consideration to submit a response?

They submitted their responses with the question unanswered. The answer was later provided after his campaign was asked to fill in that particular blank.
Title: Re: TulsaNow Questions the Candidates
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on June 06, 2013, 03:57:57 PM
Quote from: TheArtist on May 23, 2013, 09:29:51 PM
What does "Bill practices marriage from the biblical meaning" (guessing that he doesn't mean he got his wife, or wives by trading them for a camel and two chickens), have to do with extending benefits to same-sex partners?  I am happy, and do support, that he is able to get married as he wishes and is able to have that wonderful, beautiful relationship and that his wife and family would get "benefits" if he were a city employee... but again, not sure what he is saying here about extending benefits to sam-sex partners?

Have often wondered what is that supposed to mean - the "biblical meaning" ??  The only real discussions I have seen center around "wives" rather than "wife"....and that is Old Testament.  The current monogamist culture we enjoy had it's roots in ancient Greece and pagan Rome around 2 thousand years ago.  How is that biblical?