Austin "the redistribution" King is finally gone

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
Grubendol
Senior Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:35 pm

Postby Grubendol » Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:26 pm

I stand corrected.

pulsewidth modulation
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2451
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 11:18 pm

Postby pulsewidth modulation » Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:29 pm

Thanks Stu! The redistribution King serves no legitimate purpose anymore, as if he ever did; yet once again, tax payers have to fund 2 elites while they celebrate themselves in front of a camera. As if this is "vital locally produced community programming." Don't forget to sound happy and forceful while saying the previous, because that makes it true. Now that's responsible use of tax payer money!

Yea, I get it. The left wants people to believe mandatory "fees" imposed by the city attached to cable bills are not taxes. Just change the word and that somehow disguises redistribution? Whatever.

So how is King going to pay for law school? Mom and Dad, or a "grant" (another word for tax)?

Stu Levitan
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2003 8:40 pm
Location: Studio B of the historic Abernathy Building
Contact:

Postby Stu Levitan » Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:33 pm

Mister_A_In_Madison wrote:
You have an interesting perspective on what it means to be able to watch, then.

If it is not freely available to everyone, then that is democracy?

But, of course, I should not be surprised since you consider some properties free to be taken by the government.


OK, this is just gibberish. Is your point that because MCC 12 is on cable, it's not freely available to everyone? That we're somehow anti-democratic? Well, you know, C-SPAN ain't a broadcast station either. And we are available on-line (yeah, you got me -- you've probably got to pay for internet service, unless, of course, you watch at the public library.).

And, naturally, you've misrepresented my position on eminent domain, which is that government can take private property for public use with just compensation. You know, kind of like what it says in the constitution.

jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby jjoyce » Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:37 pm

pulsewidth modulation wrote:Whatever.


Psst! This very Internet is subsidized by taxes. Don't tell anyone. So are the roads upon which you drove this morning, even though they really only benefit those who drive cars, or consume consumer goods, or might need emergency medical attention.

So are parks, even though only outdoorsy types use those.

pulsewidth modulation
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2451
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 11:18 pm

Postby pulsewidth modulation » Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:55 pm

Stu Levitan wrote:And, naturally, you've misrepresented my position on eminent domain, which is that government can take private property for public use with just compensation.


Actually, you're on record supporting government taking of land for the purpose of giving one private entity considerable advantage over another private entity outside of said private contracts. You also support government price controls in these types of illegal transactions under the guise of "fair market value." "Community development" is nothing more than a happy sounding talking point. You are also guilty of promoting these viewpoints via city channel 12 counter to public will.

Quoting Stu

Stu Levitan
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2003 8:40 pm
Location: Studio B of the historic Abernathy Building
Contact:

Postby Stu Levitan » Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:04 pm

You think maybe we just disagree on what constitutes public use?

pulsewidth modulation
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2451
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 11:18 pm

Postby pulsewidth modulation » Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:10 pm

jjoyce wrote:
pulsewidth modulation wrote:Whatever.


Psst! This very Internet is subsidized by taxes. Don't tell anyone. So are the roads upon which you drove this morning, even though they really only benefit those who drive cars


Your rhetoric is pretty dumb. Do me a favor and go play with Chuck_Roast, you two play pretty well together. Are you telling me the nation's food supply while traveling over the roads, amongst other supplies, only benefits people who drive cars?

Subsidies are all over the place. What's your point? That's right, you don't have one, you only spray venom.

lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3365
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:38 pm

pulsewidth modulation wrote:What's your point? That's right, you don't have one, you only spray venom.


Can somebody enshrine that for the ages? Maybe at least put it in the paper edition?

Mister_A_In_Madison
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1574
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:45 pm
Contact:

Postby Mister_A_In_Madison » Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:04 pm

Stu Levitan wrote:
Mister_A_In_Madison wrote:
You have an interesting perspective on what it means to be able to watch, then.

If it is not freely available to everyone, then that is democracy?

But, of course, I should not be surprised since you consider some properties free to be taken by the government.


OK, this is just gibberish. Is your point that because MCC 12 is on cable, it's not freely available to everyone? That we're somehow anti-democratic? Well, you know, C-SPAN ain't a broadcast station either. And we are available on-line (yeah, you got me -- you've probably got to pay for internet service, unless, of course, you watch at the public library.)..


Yes, that is precisely my point.

To say that everyone has a chance to hear the meetings and contact a public official live is hyperbole of a poor sort.

Many of us do not have cable or sufficiently high-speed internet connections to make interactive viewing practical.

And, naturally, you've misrepresented my position on eminent domain, which is that government can take private property for public use with just compensation. You know, kind of like what it says in the constitution.


Naturally?

Mr. Levitan, in this thread you have echoed what I had asked in the post previous to yours.

So, we do agree on some things, and it is not natural for us to be in opposition.

As to misrepresenting you... here is where you started in.

Given some of your on-air rants about things from the raunchiness of "Desperate Housewives" to suggesting the banning of all alcohol in public parks, methinks you want to make sure that everyone else lives to your standards.

Or is that just your on-air persona talking?


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests