Jump to content

The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread


TopTenn

Recommended Posts

RJ, the enormity of your projections aside, governance is an "us" vs. "them" game. Your side started it. Remember your own President put it best 5 years ago, "I won."

I think that above all else is the one thing I find most detestable about the opposition ideology, is its basic dishonesty. All I can really do is mock it, since it has so heartily earned it.

Edited by fieldmarshaldj
Link to comment
Share on other sites


RJ, the enormity of your projections aside, governance is an "us" vs. "them" game. Your side started it. Remember your own President put it best 5 years ago, "I won."

I think that above all else is the one thing I find most detestable about the opposition ideology, is its basic dishonesty. All I can really do is mock it, since it is so heartily earned it.

 

 

This is much better!  We can actually maybe get somewhere when you make specific claims that can be checked and referenced. 

 

Without further ado, here are a few ways in which you're provably wrong again:

 

--Dwight Eisenhower spoke in his 1953 State of the Union Address about “summons to governmental responsibility issued last November by the American people” and outlined broad priorities, including national security, prosperity and efficient government.

 

--Lyndon Johnson described his 1964 landslide victory as a “mandate for unity”

 

--Ronald Reagan framed the 1980 election as a mandate for conservative economic policy

 

 

I recognize some of those statements were kind of a long time ago, but If you can remember back long enough to bring up Obama's 'I won' then surely you can remember GWB's successive 'mandates,' one of which he claimed after not even winning the popular vote.   You might also remember that, unlike Obama, the Senate Minority leader when Bush was in office didn't say things like 'our single biggest priority is making sure he's a one term president."  Country first, right? 

 

What was that again about what you "find most detestable about the opposition ideology?"

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the saga continues....

 

Koch brothers group works to stop Nashville Amp

 

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/31/koch-brothers-group-works-stop-nashville-amp/7100469/

 

from the Tenneessean:

 

"Ogles, one of two registered lobbyists on the staff, said Americans for Prosperity-Tennessee doesn't endorse or contribute to political campaigns. But he said it saw a political gold mine — and a national launching pad — in Republican-dominated Tennessee.

 

"With supermajorities in both houses," he said, "Tennessee is a great state to pass model legislation that can be leveraged in other states."

 

Go figure!

 

Yes, there was another mention of the Koch's last Wednesday in the Scene "Pith In the Wind" -- the blog section.

 

http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2014/03/27/senate-approves-bill-blocking-the-amps-current-design

 

-=rr=-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's funny is that you seem to think this is a "relatively" recent happening (say within the past 60 years). Neither Ike nor Reagan uttered, "I won. Get over it." LBJ might've, since he was an expert in tyranny and election fraud. I'm guessing you probably have a neat little website you go to and copy and paste answers to when, "If right wing extremist brings up..." "you reply with..." A little too pat, and just a little too quick.

I'm sure we can continue with a back and forth on elected officials "rhetoric", but it still doesn't change one iota what I said. The differences we have on so many issues are so stark, it's impossible to bridge them.

I do have to ask, with this scorched earth policy you guys are taking... you have to ask, is this all worth it, just for a BUS ?

Anyway, back to the AMP discussion, since it has gone off course again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here is a republican wanting a minimum of 900 million from the feds. You think his Republican friends there will allocate the money when they are trying to cut the budget.

 

It will be like every other federal project. WAY over budget. Don't get me wrong, I think it would be cool, but do not see it happening. Williamson County will want one too.

 

I am curious as to how much LRT would cost for the same distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nashville Plans to Solve Its Traffic Woes With … a Monorail

http://www.wired.com/2014/03/nashville-getting-monorail/

 

 

I can't help but thinking about this....

Marge_vs._the_Monorail_(promo_card).png

That was Sen. Bill Ketron's idea, I believe. Somebody seriously needs to screen him that "Simpsons" episode. This was just a plain dumb idea, and an investment in a study is a waste of taxpayer money.

Yes, there was another mention of the Koch's last Wednesday in the Scene "Pith In the Wind" -- the blog section.

 

http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2014/03/27/senate-approves-bill-blocking-the-amps-current-design

 

-=rr=-

Brother, is there a more useless piece of wasted dead trees in Nashville than "The Scene" ? It makes the Tennessean look like a John Bircher newsletter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was Sen. Bill Ketron's idea, I believe. Somebody seriously needs to screen him that "Simpsons" episode. This was just a plain dumb idea, and an investment in a study is a waste of taxpayer money.

 

He probalby was watching the Simpsons in when he thought it would be a "good" idea for Nashville.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


RJ, the enormity of your projections aside, governance is an "us" vs. "them" game. Your side started it. Remember your own President put it best 5 years ago, "I won."

I think that above all else is the one thing I find most detestable about the opposition ideology, is its basic dishonesty. All I can really do is mock it, since it has so heartily earned it.

I think the I won comment put in proper context was a statement that in a Democratic free voting society he got more votes, not once but twice, and by a large margin. All that means is more folks agree than disagree, by a large margin..........

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was kidding about the last 60 years being a long time ago.  I was trying to highlight the fact that you seemed to be ignoring not only the last 60 years, but also the most recent Republican President's 'mandates.'  But let's just blame Obama for everything, right?

 

I don't actually have any 'neat little' talking point sites that I hit up, though your patronization isn't lost on me (hey, at least it's not as crazy sounding as your death cult rant!).  My reply was quick because all I had to do was Google 'presidential mandates' to get some pretty good information on the subject.  Typically, research comes first, then you develop your opinions and (maybe) share them--not the other way around. 

 

And yes, let's get back on the subject of the AMP, I can't imagine who it was that got on their soap box and took us off topic in the first place. 

 

 

 

 

What's funny is that you seem to think this is a "relatively" recent happening (say within the past 60 years). Neither Ike nor Reagan uttered, "I won. Get over it." LBJ might've, since he was an expert in tyranny and election fraud. I'm guessing you probably have a neat little website you go to and copy and paste answers to when, "If right wing extremist brings up..." "you reply with..." A little too pat, and just a little too quick.

I'm sure we can continue with a back and forth on elected officials "rhetoric", but it still doesn't change one iota what I said. The differences we have on so many issues are so stark, it's impossible to bridge them.

I do have to ask, with this scorched earth policy you guys are taking... you have to ask, is this all worth it, just for a BUS ?

Anyway, back to the AMP discussion, since it has gone off course again.

Edited by ruraljuror
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me ignoring history ? That's a chuckle, especially given how much of it I've studied over 3 decades. Most curious. I know you're a tad indignant at my indictments, but they are borne of that "study and research" you have admonished me on. I remember the last time we went down that road in a Coffee House thread, you similarly dodged and/or pronounced everything I wrote as "debunked" with the absence of facts. I just find it (again !) curious the level of revisionist history and farce from your side, which you accuse me of (there's another example of an opposition method, indignantly accuse the right of everything you've done).

Anywho, as for who politicized the AMP, well, I think we know the answer to that (if we're being honest, that is). :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me ignoring history ? That's a chuckle, especially given how much of it I've studied over 3 decades. Most curious. I know you're a tad indignant at my indictments, but they are borne of that "study and research" you have admonished me on. I remember the last time we went down that road in a Coffee House thread, you similarly dodged and/or pronounced everything I wrote as "debunked" with the absence of facts. I just find it (again !) curious the level of revisionist history and farce from your side, which you accuse me of (there's another example of an opposition method, indignantly accuse the right of everything you've done).

 

Anywho, as for who politicized the AMP, well, I think we know the answer to that (if we're being honest, that is). :-)

 

I gave you several examples of Presidents who've claimed election mandates over the years, which you've failed to acknowledge at all (other than by saying 60 years wasn't that long ago and LBJ was a tryant!).  You didn't disagree, you didn't provide illuminating context...you just ignored it.  In fact, you then went on to repeat your claim that Obama started the whole notion of presidential mandates (and threw in a jab at the liberal media for good measure, because why not?).  If you ignore any information that doesn't fit your preconceived expectations, then those 30 years of historical research may not have been as thorough as you seem to believe. 

 

If you want to compare educational pedigrees, I'm happy to play that game with you.  I hate going down that road because it makes it seem like I'm trying to win the argument based on things like expensive diplomas and relevant job experience, which is kind of desperate if the facts are on your side.  I prefer to try and use evidence to bolster my case instead of just trying to convince everyone I know what I'm talking about simply by loudly proclaiming that I promise I really know what I'm talking about!

 

Also, I'm not blaming you for politicizing the AMP debate.  I'm blaming you for politicizing this message board.  I remember our Coffee House exchanges, too, and I think you'll have a hard (impossible) time finding an example where I initiated the debate.

 

And just to be clear, your statement that Obama created the concept of the election mandate has been debunked.  Disagree?  Then prove me wrong.  Don't just hide behind 30 years of learning, sarcastic chuckling, and dismissive name calling.  If I'm revising history, I welcome you telling me which parts I don't have right (just as I have done for you), but it's a little disingenuous just to say that I'm wrong without providing examples and/or evidence to support you claim.  That's the exact kind of dodging that you're saying I'm doing, right?  What was that again about projection and what you like least about the opposition?

Edited by ruraljuror
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I'm not blaming you for politicizing the AMP debate.  I'm blaming you for politicizing this message board.  I remember our Coffee House exchanges, too, and I think you'll have a hard (impossible) time finding an example where I initiated the debate.

Ah, here's the central point. You're "blaming me for politicizing this message board." That means you dislike the fact that someone has dared to bring a dissenting position to your left-wing worldview. It's not "politicizing" if you agree with the point a poster makes. Face it, RJ, this has been an echo chamber for blasting the state legislature and its agenda. I, sir, did not "politicize" the board, your side did. Go take a look.

Indeed, it was poster "Green Hills Boy" that initiated this recent round with his finger-wagging disapproval that the legislature pursued goals at odds with his leftist outlook, and all I said was that I was proud of this legislature and its not following the course of radical Democrat legislatures (obsessed with extremist social issues, anti-2A fascism, radical group rights, open borders, anti-business agenda, and out of control spending (just for starters)). The reason why this state is a success is because it hems to a Conservative agenda. You guys would prefer to kill the proverbial goose, which has occurred in countless states (California, a premier example, whose legislature is full of world-class criminals, such as Leland Yee).

Yup, I'm guilty of daring to disagree with the prevailing echo chamber, so that makes me the "instigator" of politicizing this thread. Where's the noose to lynch me ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was Sen. Bill Ketron's idea, I believe. Somebody seriously needs to screen him that "Simpsons" episode. This was just a plain dumb idea, and an investment in a study is a waste of taxpayer money.

Brother, is there a more useless piece of wasted dead trees in Nashville than "The Scene" ? It makes the Tennessean look like a John Bircher newsletter.

 

fieldmarshaldj, do you really have to be so mean-spirited with most if not all your replies to everything that you choose to respond to in this sub-topic?

I referenced the Scene only because of the mention of Kochs in the news, along with that ref.  from nashmoney.   My point in mentioning it was that the 5-day-old appearance of the Kochs in this matter was simply another allusion as well.

My mention of the Scene’s posting, regardless of the inferred quality of journalism in that publication, was not to cast any opinion on this subject.  IMO, most of the Scene content and follow-up blog is garbage, but a few of the respondents to some of the articles actually do have some valid points, just as I consider much of the content that you yourself have expressed.   If I in any way offended you for making that last post, then it was totally unintentional, if indeed it did rub you the wrong way, just by my mentioning the Scene.

Rather than bite one’s head off on every last thing that they have to offer, even if it’s only a phrase, you might stop and take a break and just push away from the keyboard now and then, before responding with your aspersions, even you don’t intend for them to sound that way (or even if you do intend, with respect to that matter).

I don’t know why you have allowed the discourse during this recent past few days to piss you off seemingly at the world, but you definitely have allowed it, so you might just stop and think about taking that chill.  From such a well-spoken contributor as you, with a vast amount to offer this forum, some of your discussion I regard worthy as archival quality, because it tends to be conferred as thought-evoking on some often overlooked matters.  You are loved as my own brother because of this.  I’ve only been associated with this forum sub-topic for just over 7 months, and I have tried to remain focused on the sub-topic of Nashville mass transit.  The forum content, which I had “stumbled upon” and “tripped over”, as I had expressed back then, was quite alluring.

UTgrad09 is right about our needing to stay on topic.  While it might be tempting to retort with in disapproval of a particular reference or person or place, my sincere thought is that, unless a member’s post is bordering on the line of impropriety in one way or another, of if it is even perceived to be this way, then it really is uncalled for to jump all over someone, especially for just posting an FYI, just as I had done.

Those kinds of responses tend to drive away some members as well as those out who might want to join and eventually elicit something relevant that no one else is as knowledgeable of.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


With all due respect, Roozkie, I don't find my replies to be "mean spirited" in the least. Indeed, I'm exercising enormous restraint, since I have a low threshold for tolerating the types of disingenuity I've seen on full display here. I think you're viewing that through the prism of your leanings. If I was a part of the echo chamber, arguing in the same manner against the right, there would be nary a complaint. Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed, since as an older and apparently learned individual (especially with regard to transit/rail issues, for which you seem to have no peer) that you apparently subscribe to these unfortunate and destructive social viewpoints and "cheer on" (via likes) the personal attacks made against me (even as you compliment me, so I don't know whether it is of the back-handed variety).

I'll also add I "get up and go outside" with considerable frequency during these postings. Others observing the proceedings (who are not members that I speak to) cannot believe the one-sidedness of the attacks against me for speaking up. I'd dare say that if others aren't posting here, it's because they're similarly afraid they'll be attacked by the echo chamber. There's at least a couple off the top of my head here that don't wish to be punching bags for your side. Perhaps you should consider that in your (and your colleagues) responses.

*Just as a conclusion, I'm a very political person, far more so than the average person is. Most people enjoy sports, I'm not a sports person, it doesn't appeal to me. I'm far more interested in the current state of affairs as others are interested in sports, it is of paramount importance to me. When I see something morally or ethically offensive or unjust, I speak up, and do so loudly...

Besides, you fellas want to really shut me up ? Start talking about sports, then I'll have nothing to add.

Anyway, that's enough about that, and now, back to the AMP discussion...

Edited by fieldmarshaldj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, Roozkie, I don't find my replies to be "mean spirited" in the least. Indeed, I'm exercising enormous restraint, since I have a low threshold for tolerating the types of disingenuity I've seen on full display here. I think you're viewing that through the prism of your leanings. If I was a part of the echo chamber, arguing in the same manner against the right, there would be nary a complaint. Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed, since as an older and apparently learned individual (especially with regard to transit/rail issues, for which you seem to have no peer) that you apparently subscribe to these unfortunate and destructive social viewpoints and "cheer on" (via likes) the personal attacks made against me (even as you compliment me, so I don't know whether it is of the back-handed variety).

I'll also add I "get up and go outside" with considerable frequency during these postings. Others observing the proceedings (who are not members that I speak to) cannot believe the one-sidedness of the attacks against me for speaking up. I'd dare say that if others aren't posting here, it's because they're similarly afraid they'll be attacked by the echo chamber. There's at least a couple off the top of my head here that don't wish to be punching bags for your side. Perhaps you should consider that in your (and your colleagues) responses.

*Just as a conclusion, I'm a very political person, far more so than the average person is. Most people enjoy sports, I'm not a sports person, it doesn't appeal to me. I'm far more interested in the current state of affairs as others are interested in sports, it is of paramount importance to me. When I see something morally or ethically offensive or unjust, I speak up, and do so loudly...

Besides, you fellas want to really shut me up ? Start talking about sports, then I'll have nothing to add.

Anyway, that's enough about that, and now, back to the AMP discussion...

 

I apologize, fieldmarshaldj, really don't mean to rub you off.  I ain't on anyone's side, as you put it, and I am not singing with any chorus, as it were, either.  I spoke up, because I sensed heat off your response, since it did seem somewhat disparaging.

 

I erred in my choice of clicking the like-button, by failing to examine before treading, when in fact I had been responding on impulse to one or two points within the text of those 3rd-party responses, rather than conscientiously taking a moment to carefully examine the connotations of the context of the response as a whole (a matter of grasping better reading comprehension, I suppose).  Too many times, I have been guilty as charged for having that "triggah-happy" finger on the like-button, and as I now very well am aware, that button can be nothing more than an irreversible "gang-hammer", if not utilized sparingly.

 

As a case in point, while not aiming to agree with ruraljuror's message (10:32 hrs, 2014-0329), he actually hit a nerve when making a reference to generalization to civil matters of my distant past:

 

"Yes, the Tennessee legislature has spoken clearly, just like they once clearly spoke on issues like what types of people were allowed to use which water fountains and what teachers like Scopes were and were not permitted to teach in their classrooms.  Thankfully there were people around then who saw past the shortsightedness of what the legislature was so clearly saying, right?"

 

I guess that I bit the lure, so to speak, with little attention given to the yet unseen upper end of that lure.  ruraljuror had not the intention to deceive or to misinform anyone, but nevertheless I beguiled myself with a bit of passion induced by the single statement taken out of context.  Why?  All because of a number of personal experiences and run-ins of that past.  As a matter of fact, I was just as guilty in calling the kettle black here, as I had called out on someone else who responded to my own post of 28-March, 15:26 hrs, seemingly without first examining conclusively intended thesis of a statement made previously concerning a different "locally preferred alternative" (Streetcar v.s. BRT in the eyes of the legislature).  The last thing I want to do is to egg you on you and ruraljuror, as if you two were dogs in a pit, and to root for one of you in contentionthat's the last thing I ever would want to do.

 

Just remember.  When I give you or anyone else a compliment, then it's for bona-fide face value, no hidden agenda of patronization behind it.  I'm certainly too damn old to be suckin' up to anyone.  Again my apology, and if it were (or if it is) possible to make any redress, then that's exactly what I would do.

 

-=rr=-

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about that Amp thingy...... I doubt that any ideological positions will be changed on this board.... I think my view is correct and logical and I am sure all of you do as well. I do not know a true single issue voter and thus a simple transit dispute is always likely to morph into a larger disagreement and general venting of views. 

I have found that it is more productive and enjoyable to talk politics with supporters and opponents alike face-to-face and would welcome such discourse. To do so over an impersonal message board is an exercise in futility, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about that Amp thingy...... I doubt that any ideological positions will be changed on this board.... I think my view is correct and logical and I am sure all of you do as well. I do not know a true single issue voter and thus a simple transit dispute is always likely to morph into a larger disagreement and general venting of views. 

I have found that it is more productive and enjoyable to talk politics with supporters and opponents alike face-to-face and would welcome such discourse. To do so over an impersonal message board is an exercise in futility, IMO.

 

Great point. I think there are some very valid positions on both sides of the debate, but I think we -- as well as the city at large -- let our passion for that spill over into the territory of political bickering. It seems all too common (and not just on the Amp debate) that when two immovable opinions meet each other, then the debate devolves into ugly mudslinging and mass generalizations about the other side's perceived political perspective (I say this because I believe many people's political views are far more nuanced than "Republican or Democrat" or "Liberal or Conservative"). So the frustrations of 'our side' not getting our way, we are prone to boil over into these long venting rants.

 

I certainly agree that this is better handled face-to-face, where we tend to act more like human beings (civil), than through the avatars we represent on the internet, where tone, inflection, and body language be damned. Too much is lost in this sort of impersonal communication. I must admit there are times where I lose my cool as well, or type out a heated response without full consideration of the other poster's intention or position.

 

 

So I do implore that we all agree to holster our verbal weaponry. It is a fact that people will occasionally post things that irk us or rub us the wrong way. It is one thing to respond with a differing opinion, but please, PLEASE leave out the personal jabs and attacks. Tone it down.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee Beaman and the Koch brothers are using Tennessee legislators and the citizens of Nashville as a human parlor game. When the game ends, they will move on to their next event, with no desire to use mass transit or to improve the city. We will still be here stuck in traffic and waiting for the next election. It's our move and they need to move on!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize, fieldmarshaldj, really don't mean to rub you off.  I ain't on anyone's side, as you put it, and I am not singing with any chorus, as it were, either.  I spoke up, because I sensed heat off your response, since it did seem somewhat disparaging.

-snip-

-=rr=-

No, you were rather mild. My "heat" you sensed, however, was probably in the range of a balmy 80 degrees. To RJ's posts, a smidge higher. The problem I've had with virtually every post he's made on political subjects is that he has either completely dodged points, engaged in projection with his arguments, apples to oranges comparison or rhetorical hyperbole. Going back to when I said I was proud of this legislature, that is only something of a recent occurrence.

When RJ threw out issues of nearly a century ago to equate with today, this was disingenuous. It was also one party (not the current majority) that had control for nearly 140 years uninterrupted (indeed, it was the "liberation" from that party a few years ago that caused me to be proud of it after a lifetime of not being so). Simply put, it wasn't a GOP majority that mandated separate drinking fountains.

The Scopes Trial was also a lot more complex than warranting a brief "bad legislative" reference to score a point for an argument, and still has repercussions to this day. What teachers are allowed to teach (or even their personal behaviors) is an issue that goes beyond "legislative control", and has concerned me since I was in school (with textbooks and teachers engaged in a heavily slanted presentation of factual issues, which has worsened in the 3 decades since I was there, and isn't just in Tennessee).

The whipped cream of the replies was the spinning to equate past Presidents whom calmly and methodically laid out their agenda vs. an arrogant, entitled politician, anointed to said office, who declared like a community organizing thug, "I won. Deal with it." And the proverbial cherry on top was trotting out "the Koch Brothers", which has become the favorite red meat, frothing-at-the-mouth, leftist whipping boy. It fully deserved the derisive laughter from my side of the aisle when that was entered into the "AMP" argument. Even funnier is the left's attempts to make these successful Libertarian businessmen into that single Alinsky-style target has utterly failed, since most of the public has no idea who they are (and if those that don't did, would be puzzling over why they were being attacked at all -- especially given that they are way down the list of people and groups giving money to candidates and causes, most of which are from the left that earn nary a fraction of the attention or attacks).

Anyway... That's why I asked that with that blizzard of attacks coming forth all centered from a disagreement over the AMP, was it all really worth it over an expensive bus ? I think the whole thing has reached a level of absolute farce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee Beaman and the Koch brothers are using Tennessee legislators and the citizens of Nashville as a human parlor game. When the game ends, they will move on to their next event, with no desire to use mass transit or to improve the city. We will still be here stuck in traffic and waiting for the next election. It's our move and they need to move on!

There you guys go again... The nefarious forces of Beaman & Koch Bros (cue scary music) conspiring together to keep Nashvillians stuck in traffic. Save us AMP ! Glorious AMP ! Your magical, expensive bus will liberate us forever from the evil auto-mo-bile !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you guys go again... The nefarious forces of Beaman & Koch Bros (cue scary music) conspiring together to keep Nashvillians stuck in traffic. Save us AMP ! Glorious AMP ! Your magical, expensive bus will liberate us forever from the evil auto-mo-bile !

 

In any event, I don't think it is good to have outside influences, no matter the side of the political spectrum, flexing their political muscle here. I don't think it is in the best interest of Nashville to become a battleground of interest groups, especially given how one-sided the politics are in our state government. The same would've held true when the legislature was under Democratic control.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If only we had a couple of these...it would solve all of our problems.

 

You wouldn't have to worry about center lane/right lane fiasco, no lanes will be lost, minimal construction costs, we could just retrofit old school buses that metro has stored over by the fairgrounds, and everyone would be one big happy family!

 

Maybe Sen. Ketron could submit legislation to fund this study next, after the monorail study is complete.

 

Magic-school-bus-300x250.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you guys go again... The nefarious forces of Beaman & Koch Bros (cue scary music) conspiring together to keep Nashvillians stuck in traffic. Save us AMP ! Glorious AMP ! Your magical, expensive bus will liberate us forever from the evil auto-mo-bile !

 

Do you really agree that the Koch brothers should have a say in anything that happens in our city?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.