Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

More Straw less man... Desperation Strikes Prop R Supporter

Last night I posted the definition of a Straw Man argument in the hope that the individual I pointed out might see the error of his ways and steer his car back onto the road of civilized conversation and debate. Having nothing to support the myriad of claims and accusations he instead proceeded to hit the gas and drive straight off a cliff. Attacking Neighborhood Councils and having a complete conversation with himself on this blog for a good part of the day.

See, this is why I support Universal Healthcare. If we had it, morons like this wouldn’t be off of their medication.

This genius is as proud as a brand new dad because he came up with what he thinks is a groovy catch phrase; “less than one percenters.” What he is attempting to do is compare the elections of Neighborhood Councils to that of the City Council, which is akin to comparing checkers to water polo. The purpose is obvious, to attempt to discredit those who disagree with him and if that doesn’t work, simply distract you from the matter at hand which in this case is Proposition R. Someone’s been reading Karl Rove’s new book a little too much and suddenly thinks he’s James Carville.

In this particular under-medicated nincompoops mind he begins by drawing an artificial parallel to the elections of multi-million dollar city wide campaigns, and those of citizen volunteers. Then he states that these folks don’t represent the community. See right there in the sub-basement of the argument he misses the entire point of Neighborhood Councils. A point I shouldn’t have to make to any individual with enough intelligence to turn on a computer, but since this individual obviously took the short yellow bus to work this morning lets see if I can spell this one out for him... and while we’re at it you City Hall Staffers take note…

Neighborhood Councils are designed to be a cross-section of the community and by the sheer makeup of their boards represent diverse groups in each community.

Any argument that the Neighborhood Councils “don’t represent” the general feelings of the city might hold water if they were running opposite of public opinion, but those polls have Proposition R going down like the Hindenburg. (Oh wait, what are “polls”? A small sampling of people, usually just a few hundred, designed to see what millions of people are thinking. I suppose they don’t represent the people either)

So, in an utter act of desperation comes the charge (oh is this good) that the reason Neighborhood Councils are fighting Proposition R across the entire city, is because they want to run for City Council.

Another 20 ft tall Straw Man.

Making the argument out of thin air, assuming it is fact, and then demanding that these people out themselves to show their “true” motivation. He wants you to forget that it takes more than the individual but a majority of each council to agree as well, for a motion to pass. In most cases that means an average of 11 members per Neighborhood Council (assuming the city average of 20 boardmembers)

Since it seems to be escaping this one blogger who feels so strongly that Neighborhood Councils mean absolutely nothing that he must sit here all day and attack them, exactly why people are against Proposition R let me spell it out for you.

The City Council violated the City Charter, bypassed the public, and wrapped up a self serving extension of their term into a so-called ethics reform package that actually weakens the city’s ethics rules.

Just precisely how stupid do you guys think we are?

Nevermind. Don’t answer that. The fact you even tried it answers the question.

This Councilman officially endorses the No on Prop R campaign.

Blog away dum dums … but to that “special” dum dum, try to keep your posts to under 20 today what do ya say?



Anonymous Anonymous said:


Called his ass out. High 5 CJ. Oh gog I'm laughing so hard i'm crying.

Seriously... GREAT post.

September 19, 2006 2:17 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

They have nothing CJ. All he can do is bash people and cast distractions.

September 19, 2006 2:59 AM  

Blogger joseph mailander said:

CJ, I still think you guys are obsessing on R to the loss of deserved media glare on H. H will cost every homeowner in the city a little something. What will they get in return? It's not farfetched to imagine that part of the billion could go towards bailing out Grand Avenue.

I wish we had a vibrant enough debate on H going that Garcetti and Villaraigosa would at least have to pledge to the City that if H passed, none of it would be spent on projects by overly-expensive builders and architects. The fact that moneybag Frank Gehry's firm could end up Prop H dollars just for throwing an Affordable Housing component into their Grand Avenue project demands some kind of reassurance.

September 19, 2006 6:49 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Nicely said Councilman John. Not one good argument why anyone should support Prop R. All they've or should I say the clowncil members and staffers have been doing is attacking neigborhood councils. Its not working. Its only turning more people to the side opposing NO ON PROP R

September 19, 2006 7:15 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Let's see, where do I start? Neighborhood councils were created to connect with neighborhoods in a city where neighborhoods are increasing disconnected from their government. So these less than on percenters do have a problem. They have been no more successful in connecting with communities then the City Council and they don't seem to care that they have failed.

They blame DONE, the City Council but take no responsibility themselves.

I suspect after Prop R goes down in flames, because none of the disconnected voters was going to support it even before NC's got involved, the leaders of these one percenter clown troops will claim that they stopped Prop R.

During some future campaign for Alger and others you will see a claim on a campaign web site that they lead the fight against Prop R.

These self appointed NC leaders are really just the JV Clown Troop hoping to make it to the Varsity.

September 19, 2006 7:18 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This fight is going to be good.

......Board of Education president Marlene Canter, who was not invited to the ceremony, told LA Observed this morning that the board intends to go ahead with plans to litigate the constitutionality of the bill. The board is also moving ahead with plans to hire a new superintendent to replace the departing Roy Romer before AB 1381 taking effect on Jan. 1.

September 19, 2006 7:29 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

R will pass. My take on this is NC's with good intentions won't beat this. Sorry guys, it won't happen.

September 19, 2006 8:51 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

8:51 Polling says you're wrong. public hates extending term limits. and even those who support extending hate this thing. Times and Daily News both ALREADY against it? It is going dpwn and hard.

September 19, 2006 8:59 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Can someone please name names for those of us who are not "in the know?"

September 19, 2006 9:30 AM  

Blogger Jim Alger said:

7:18 am - Please do not presume to know what I may or may not do in some future hypothetical run for office. I assure you that you haven't a clue.

Your premise is once again incorrect. Neighborhood Councils were designed to thwart secession and give people the illusion that City Hall was listening to them. With Proposition H and R it has become very apparent the "we the people" is merely an afterthought.

Now I suppose you enjoy attacking NC's as "one percenters" but as CJ pointed out if you truly weren't concerned you wouldn't be posting. Although now your attempting to prepare the opposite side of the argument -- If NC's lead the charge against Proposition R and win, they really didn't win and if they lead the charge and Proposition R fails it proves they have no power.

You must be dizzy from spinning that hard. Political hackery won't save Prop R. But I understand, that's all you have left.

September 19, 2006 10:10 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

7:18 - I would support any VOLUNTEER who believes in their community enough to be an active member of the Neighborhood Council while dipshits such as yourself attack them. If they decide to HELP their community by running for higher office that is a GOOD THING.

When they run I would expect them to list what they feel are their accomplishments to support their beliefs. That's called CAMPAIGNING.

It beats all these lobbyists and staffers shuffling the chairs around on the 4th floor.

Your argument is a cross between the Straw Man and the Red Herring.

Still can't find an ACTUAL reason to support R huh? How sad. By now you would think someone as bright as yourself could have made one up.

September 19, 2006 10:24 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Two long posts against the straw man in as many days, CJ. She/he must had hit some very raw nerve with you along the way.

September 19, 2006 11:27 AM  

Anonymous NC Board Member From PU said:

Did we finally ever find out who the genius was? Names were thrown out, but were they confirmed?

September 19, 2006 11:36 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Exactly, Councilman Juan. If the arguments are easily busted, the poster was a "moron" and the bloggers here are too smart to buy any of it, why all the fuss?

September 19, 2006 11:40 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

to 7:18 yes, I am sure you will support anyone

September 19, 2006 11:41 AM  

Blogger David Hernandez said:

The North Hollywood North East Neighborhood joined the long list of other Councils which took a position in opposition to Prop R-Measure R. This measure would extend the terms of the existing City Council members from two four year terms to three four year terms.

In addition, the NHNE NC voted to allocate funds ($4,000.00) to inform their stake holders of their position. Not to campaign for or against but to insure those in the community were aware of their position.

One condition of the allocation was the clarification of the rules and regulations pertaining to the use of council funds for this purpose.

On Monday September 18, 2006 Department of Neighborhood Empowerment Assistant General Manger Arturo Pina addressed the members of Valley Vote. During the question and answer segment, David Hernandez requested an official DONE clarification on the funding issue.

The response is a letter dated December 15, 2000 from then City Attorney James K. Hahn to then DONE General Manager Rosalind Stewart.

Mr. Pina stated there have been no policy changes in this area since the date of the letter.

The full letter is posted at www.termedout.com.

Then City Attorney Hahn states:

" If you are asking whether a neighborhood council can become involved in political campaigns or use its official status and resources to influence the election or defeat of candidates and ballot measures, our advice is that, with the exception of taking a public position in support of or opposition to a ballot measure, a neighborhood council may not engage in that type of conduct.”

Does this mean, we as council members can take a public position but are barred from using funds to let our stake holders know of our position? Maybe so…

But what is also contained in Attorney Hahn’s opinion is the following:

The courts have repeatedly said that "the use of public funds for partisan campaign purposes is improper. . . ." Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206,218. See also, People v. Nathanson (1 955) 134 Cal.App2d 43; People v. Sperl(1976) 54 . Cal.App.3d 43; People v. Batfin (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d. 635.'

For basically the same reasons that the government may not spend public funds in support of candidates for public office, the government
also may not officially endorse candidates for office. The Court in Stanson, supra, stated that "[a] principal danger feared by our country's founders lay in the possibility that the holders of government authority would use official power to improperly perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office." id.at 217. Just as the government may not "'take sides' in an election contest" (id.) by using public funds to assist candidates in obtaining office, the government may not 'take sides by endorsing candidates.

So here are my next questions to be answered:

Does the city council action violate Stanson v. Mott? Clearly, by having the term limit extension begin with their terms, it most definitely does “perpetuate themselves”

Has the City Council spent any city funds on the forwarding of the measure? If the City Attorney is in fact representing the city council in order to retain the measure on the ballot, then they are using public funds to perpetuate themselves, also a violation of Stanson V. Mott.

Now I will turn to the City Attorney for an additional attempt to clarify the use of the funds.I can't wait...

Next question: If the City attorney represents the City Council on one side of the issue, is it not a conflict of interest to advise the Neighborhood Councils who are on the opposite side of the issue?

Does this not conflict with the below opinion also contained in Attorney Hahn’s letter?

"Underlying this uniform judicial reluctance to sanction the use of
public funds for election campaigns rests an implicit recognition that such expenditures raise potentially serious constitutional questions. A fundamental precept of this nation's democratic electoral process is that the government may not 'take sides' in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions." Id. at 217.

The prohibition against the use of public funds for political campaign purposes applies to expenditures in support or opposition to both candidates and ballot measures.

Glad to be of service,

David Hernandez

September 19, 2006 11:45 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

why the fuck can't jack weiss get the constuction on pico to stop during rush hour?

Is he on his cell phone getting into trouble again.

September 19, 2006 11:54 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

North Hollywood NE, last election = 93 total votes cast from a resident stakeholder base of 39,670, after 3 years of certification (down from 125 votes cast its first year.)

Or, 2/10th of 1 percent of residents (which doesn't take into account many thousands of non-resident workers and non-resident property owners. . . i.e, "live, work, or own property").

Also glad to be of service.

September 19, 2006 12:04 PM  

Anonymous Captain Jack Sparrow said:

Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen (Bows low and removes hat with flourish):

After reading the rather lengthy posts by a sot presumed to be either from the Cypress Park Neighborhood Council, the Arroyo Seco Neighborhood Council or the Lincoln Heights Chamber of Commerce (this was on the previous day's posts), I am pleased to see that someone other than myself writes long, rambling missives. Hail there local sot! A teacher of history you must be to know that the pen is mightier than the sword! Sir Walter Moore is also a teacher, are you not, Sir? Some of the sots need to be schooled. Will you sail with our pirate crew, Sir Walter Moore?

The pirate crew was ashore yesterday and decided to go to the Library to read what could be read. Guv'nah, you should be called out for giving in to Villabarbosa! Bad form indeed. Methinks you are a corsair in fine silks and wig, savvy?

Emma, luv? Are the sots in City Hall indeed nervous? Today there is a pirate in their midst as three of our number were in attendance in a meeting whereby strategy to muzzle Mr. Dogg was being discussed. As we speak, two of my crew are lunching at the Mall with a sot. I myself am sitting with a bloody crackberry not too far from the lunching sot. You have until 12:15 to come find me.


September 19, 2006 12:16 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The rush of people out the door of City Hall to find the pirate at the Mall is amazing. For all those who say nobody in City Hall reads this blog, the pirate just proved you wrong! Everybody suddenly had to "go to lunch" where I am at the same time.

September 19, 2006 12:30 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

captain jack

A few postings claim that this neurotic nincompoop Straw Man was from the Cypress Park Neighborhood Council, the Arroyo Seco Neighborhood Council or the Lincoln Heights Chamber of Commerce but no one believes it. That was the troll trying to distract people from who it is. He is probably a city hall staffer who is known to associate with a well known female cyber screwball. That woman seems to think she is doing Antonio a favor (maybe she is)but she has left enough postings on line that you can actually compare the style and manical methods to what has occurred here. Everybody knows who it is. And it is not an NC member.

September 19, 2006 12:33 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Did you find the treasure?

September 19, 2006 12:34 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Don't most people take lunch about this time, genius?

September 19, 2006 12:34 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I'm disabled, can't walk.

September 19, 2006 12:37 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Someone needs to make up their minds, is it coming from a city staffer looking to protect a job, or someone from a local council named above.

The party line yesterday was that the person had already been outed, and Villaraigosa was pissed off at them. Days back they said they'd never met the mayor.

September 19, 2006 12:37 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

12:33 PM Who is she?

1) Staffer
2) Disgruntled EX-Staffer
3) NC terminator
4) Animal Woman
5) ?

September 19, 2006 12:40 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Alger at 10:10 a.m.

Northridge West NC, last election = 79 total votes cast from a resident stakeholder base of 19,664 after 2 years of certification (down from 216 votes cast its first year.)

Or, 4/10th of 1 percent of residents (which doesn't take into account thousands of non-resident workers and non-resident property owners. . . i.e, "live, work, or own property").

Again, happy to be of service.

September 19, 2006 12:41 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"well known female cyber screwball"

Who? ^-^

September 19, 2006 12:42 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Who's anti-Prop R NC is next up to bat?

September 19, 2006 12:42 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

What I do 2 run for NC Board?

election parties
election fundraisers
election beer parties
election Playboy Parties
Election Vodka Parties

September 19, 2006 12:44 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Who is it?

1) Staffer
2) Disgruntled EX-Staffer
3) NC terminator
4) Animal Woman
5) Motorcycle Enthusiast

IMO: 1 and 5

September 19, 2006 12:47 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

At least this gets the attention off the obnoxious self-serving Dogg.

September 19, 2006 12:51 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Are you being served?

September 19, 2006 12:52 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Captain Jack
I spy with my little eye...
you've added a new scoundrel to your list for the plank...

September 19, 2006 1:01 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Isn't it obvious, the KKK-aptain wants all La-TEEN-o politicians to walk the plank.

The only things Jack-off likes in brown is little bare-chested native girls who "trade" things for pretty beads.

September 19, 2006 1:06 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


How gullible can you yokels be. Jack-shit is playing one of the oldest carny games in town... "Whizzo the Mindreader" can tell you what you have in your hand.

Is it car keys?? Yes? AMAZING.

Somewhere in the mall is there a group of three talking shop.

You betcha. But the snake oil, too. It cures warts AND keeps your colon clear.

September 19, 2006 1:28 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Physically, too?

Too bad, strike three!

September 19, 2006 1:29 PM  

Blogger David Hernandez said:

I am certain the parents, children and teachers of the three middle schools in the NHNE Council district who received 10,000 worth of supplies really cared about the number of votes cast at the last election.

The North Hollywood and Foothill Divisions of LAPD did not ask for a ballot count when we gave them 4,000 for their vehicle cameras.

One other thing Mr. Pena stated at Valley Vote: The City attorney has made it clear, the Neighborhood Council is an Official Department of the City.

Like it or not, it is what it is.
You can rant about the numbers all you want, but that doesn't change the city attorneys position.

Have to go now to prepare, as we will be addressing the Woodland Hills Chamber of Commerce this evening at their Candidates Forum 21850 Oxnard St. Woodland Hills, Warner Center Marriott 6:30-8:30PM.

September 19, 2006 1:32 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

One feels driven to ask.

How did this NC board, elected by less than 100, know if the other 99.8 percent of the resident stakeholders in the NHNE area, plus thousands of other non-residents, would have chosen to spend the taxpayers money in this manner?

Especially when they never see an agenda, and most have never heard of the NC itself. Non-residents likely never even receive ballots, or know they exist.

September 19, 2006 1:42 PM  

Blogger Councilman John said:

12:04/12:41 Mathematician - You obviously missed the point of the post completely.

Go back and read it again until you understand. I know, it will take a while but it'll be worth it.

September 19, 2006 1:42 PM  

Blogger Councilman John said:

That goes for 1:42 as well

September 19, 2006 1:43 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Wilmington NC, last election = 47 total votes cast from a resident stakeholder base of 63,466 after 4 years of certification (down from 296 votes cast two years ago, its peak.)

Or, 7/100th of 1 percent of residents (which doesn't take into account many thousands of non-resident workers and non-resident property owners. . . i.e, "live, work, or own property").

Another anti-Prop R NC, placed in perspective. Still glad to be of service.

September 19, 2006 1:47 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

CJ, you need to get out your Funk & Wagnalls and discover the difference between "representative of" and "representation" -- as in "Taxation without. . ." (Or "use of taxpayer funds" without).

September 19, 2006 1:50 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Look, what do you want from these neighborhood councils. Mine is very representative of the people here.

We "have a black, a woman, two Jews, and a cripple".

(with no apologies to Earl Butz)

September 19, 2006 2:01 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

When will the Support Prop R people start to come out? Does anyone know besides the obvious League of Women's Voters and LA Chamber of Commerce who else is supporting Prop R? When will John Shallman start hitting the campaign trail with lies and personal attacks?

September 19, 2006 2:03 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Judging from the numbers being posted, Shallman won't have to tell any lies.

September 19, 2006 2:08 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Before someone gets too damn "trite" for even this room. . .

Not ALL figures lie, and not ALL liars figure.

(And sometimes a watched pot does boil).

September 19, 2006 2:09 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Tarzana NC, last and only election = 83 total votes cast from a resident stakeholder base of 30,875. No follow-up elections held in three years.

Or, 3/10th of 1 percent of residents (which doesn't take into account many thousands of non-resident workers and non-resident property owners. . . i.e, "live, work, or own property").

Yet another anti-Prop R NC, placed in perspective.

Let me know when you discover the "pattern" developing here. (Being able to discern patterns is supposed to be a sign of a high IQ)

There are (other) NCs that have posted election tallies of 5, 6, even 10 percent. Some within a year of being certified.

But not in this crowd -- not those listed on the "Not Prop R" site.

September 19, 2006 2:18 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

(Correction, those last tallies were for Harbor Gateway North. . . but the percentage is the same in each case -- 3/10 of 1 percent.)

September 19, 2006 2:20 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


CJ must be a genuius then for discerning your pattern and calling your ass out.

September 19, 2006 2:25 PM  

Blogger Zuma Dogg said:

Yeah, yeah...

Thanks to the other concerned citizen's who didn't get paid a penny to show up at City Hall to tell people watching on TV 35 (7:30pm & 12mid replay tonight) why the need to "Vote NO on R".

That makes all of our words that much more effective. It takes a few people talking about something to catch people's attention.

I hope MORE people show up, especially those on this blog who make very good points. Otherwise, just keep posting, "No on R" comments, I'll read them, and include them in Public Comment.

(That's all I've been doing so far, anyway, FYI.)

"ZD Fights City Hall" TV Show, tonight, 5:30pm, Time Warner Public Access Channel/Hollywood System

September 19, 2006 2:36 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Harbor Gateway SOUTH, last election = 39 total votes cast from a resident stakeholder base of 22,613. Exact same number of ballots cast their first election three years before (avg. = 2.5 votes per sitting board member).

Or, 2/10th of 1 percent of residents (which doesn't take into account many thousands of non-resident workers and non-resident property owners. . . i.e, "live, work, or own property").

Yet another anti-Prop R NC, in pattern. More service to be provided, as needed.

September 19, 2006 2:38 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This is from the fine folks at the League of Women Voters who are only interested in looking out for our interest...

Shall the Charter be amended and ordinance adopted to: change Councilmember term limits to three terms; restrict lobbyists from making campaign contributions,gifts and
becoming commissioners; revise lobbyist registration thresholds; require contractors certify compliance with lobbying laws; extend elected officials' post-employment restrictions; require ethics training; and revise requirements for independent
expenditures and campaign communications?

Our City government needs reform.
Proposition R has tough new ethics reforms and term limits that will make City Government more honest, effective and accountable to voters. It will reduce the power and influence of special interests and their paid lobbyists.

That’s why the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles AreaChamber of Commerce initiated this reform.

• A YES vote on Proposition R establishes a limit of three terms on City Councilmembers to reduce the power and influence of City Hall bureaucrats and

• A YES vote on Proposition R prohibits City officials from accepting free gifts from lobbyists. That means no more free meals, no travel junkets and no more tickets to sporting events and concerts.

• A YES vote on Proposition R prohibits lobbyists from making campaign contributions to City Councilmembers, bars lobbyists from being appointed to any
City ‘Board or Commission, and imposes tough reforms on contract bidders.

• A YES Vote on Proposition R toughens disclosure rules for the millions of dollars of independent expenditures that are made in City elections.

Proposition R will
also require greater disclosure by candidates in all of their political advertisements.

• A YES vote on Proposition R prohibits former elected City officials, appointed
commissioners, board members and high-level employees from lobbying any City
agency or department for two years after leaving City service.

• A YES vote on Proposition R requires City Councilmembers, their staff and City
Commissioners to attend mandatory ethics training.

Proposition R is the most effective way to make sure that City government is more
honest, effective and accountable to voters.

Please join us in voting YES on Proposition R!

Liza White, President David Nichols, Chairman
League of Women Voters of Los Angeles
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

September 19, 2006 3:28 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Tarzana NC (corrected), last election = 106 total votes cast from a resident stakeholder base of 34,570. (An effective 2/3 decline from the previous year's vote totalling 301 ballots).

Or, 3/10th of 1 percent of residents (which doesn't take into account many thousands of non-resident workers and non-resident property owners. . . i.e, "live, work, or own property").

One more anti-Prop R NC better understood. Pleased to be of service, again.

September 19, 2006 3:36 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Los Angeles CA last mayoral election = 289,116 votes total votes cast for Antonio Villaraigosa.

Number of registered voters in the City of LA as of 2/11/05: 1,472,689.

Pleased to be of service.

September 19, 2006 3:47 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Jim "Bozo" Alger and his clown troop just don't get it. If you are supported by less than one percent of the population of your neighborhoods and most do not even know you exist are you really leading anybody?

The public already voted in term limits and are unlikely to change the rules now.

Prop R will go down in flames and Alger's clown troop will attempt to take credit for the defeat. Kind of like Al Gore claimed he created the internet.

September 19, 2006 4:01 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Los Angeles CA last mayoral election = 289,116 votes total votes cast for Antonio Villaraigosa.

Number of registered voters in the City of LA as of 2/11/05: 1,472,689.

Pleased to be of service.

September 19, 2006 4:21 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

That's 20 percent.

Not 2 percent. (10 times that)

Not 2/10 of 1 percent. (100 times that)

September 19, 2006 4:27 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Amazing all the oppositon can post is numbers trying to defeat a strong grass root movement. How sad they are trying to slam community volunteers. Shame on Them.
Here's the facts:
Prop R was rejected by the City Attorney
Clowncil refused to allow our Ethics Commission to review the proposal
Clowncil DENIED the People the same chance to be heard as they did the Chamber of Commerce
Clowncil NEVER notified your Neighborhood Councils as the City Charter requires
Clowncil WASTED $2,500,00 of your taxpayer dollars to put this flawed measure on the ballot.

September 19, 2006 4:32 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

4:27 PM
I have watched you post these numbers over and over again, like you post everything over and over. How long did you think it would take to notice that your numbers are based on residents, non-resident homeowners and at no time have you used REGISTERED VOTERS.
Try doing your math again Mr. 1 percenter.

And just because candidates in local elections do not have the money to advertise that they are candidates and can't get out the vote like, say a big huge mayoral candidate can, doesn't mean the local folks don't stand for us. That is your other mistaken assumption.

As to the popularity of your Mayor (boss???), Antonio's "mandate" does not represent 20 percent. Go back and do the math on those numbers, too.
Pleased to be of service. Again.

September 19, 2006 4:39 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

1:32 (Hernandez)

Is that the same NHNE NC that DONE accounts show has more than $100,000 hoarded in city accounts (2 years worth of $50K allowances), unspent on the community, unspent on outreach, unspent on improving election results, unspent on beautification, unspent. . . on anything.

But now it's critical that $4,000 be spent on "education" on this single issue (in a "non-partisan" way of course). But you're certain to mention that NHNE has taken a board vote to oppose it (informational, non-partisan, of course).

How many thousands has NHNE spent on "informational" non-partisan mailings trying to get more people involved in NC activities?

Are there no needs in North Hollywood? Are there no community groups that need assistance in doing their good works? Other than the middle schools, are there no instutions doing without necessities? Is there nothing broken, that needs fixing?

I drive through there several times as week. If you need a list of things that the neighborhood could use help with, and that would let the other 40+ thousand stakeholders know about your NC, let me know.

September 19, 2006 4:43 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Do the math on 4 million residents, grab another million "non-resident" workers, another couple hundred thousand "non resident" property owners and then let us know what Antonio's supposed "mandate" with the people is.

Pleased to be of service again Mr. 1 Percenter.

September 19, 2006 5:03 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Neighborhood council elections have nothing to do with "registered voters" - period.

Each NC defines it's stakeholders in slightly different ways. Some have age restrictions, but all must include anyone who "lives, works, or owns property" there.

Because of this, most NCs have a "potential" number of eligible stakeholders that can be and usually is much LARGER than the resident population used to computer the already embarrassing figures shown.


Average NC = 38,000 residents

Exclude underaged (18, 16, etc. depending on bylaws) = eligible residents - approx. 30,000 "adults"

Add back in non-resident workers (100s to 1,000s, depending on location), and non-resident property owners (can be as high as 50 percent of homes, or more).

An average sized NC with 38,000 residents could easily have 50,000 to 60,000 actual stakeholders, or more.

Workers need not be full-time, property owners can own empty lots, etc. etc. etc.

So you see, you are sadly, painfully misinformed, and only making it worse for the NCs being referenced. If all those factors were calculated in, some of the "2/10 of 1 percent" NC's would probably be more like "1/10" or even less.

You've only digging the hole deeper for them, by bringing this up.

However, I DO appreciate your service.

September 19, 2006 5:06 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Hey, I didn't even vote for Antonio! No skin off my nose.

Make him look just as bad as you like, go hog wild (is he promoting Prop R??)

September 19, 2006 5:07 PM  

Blogger Parque Esqueleto said:

Well, hell, it's skin off MY prominent schnozz if you make AV look bad.

I worked my butt on turning him into a national figure, and de facto runner of school districts. And I had to assassinate opponents' character left and right to make it work. No small feat (small "feet", yes, but no small "feat").

On the other hand, I get extra pay for resurrecting people's character again and again during their careers.

Never mind!

September 19, 2006 5:13 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The neighborhood council mandates vs. Mayor mandates attempts at misdirection shouldn't come as any surprise.

Rememember that during the mayor's race, Hertzberg had tons more NC board member endorsements than either Hahn, or Villaraigosa.

Then, in the general election, many of the Hertzberg supporters from NC boards switched to Hahn, and far fewer to AV - the eventual winner.

Then, later the same year, most of the NC leaders in Council District 14 supported Pacheco, not Huizar - the eventual winner.

Does this suggest something about how representative of the public opinion, even in their own areas, that NC leaders actually are?

September 19, 2006 5:19 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The potential for registered voters is the same as the potential for NC voters. Any citizen over the age of 18 who has the interest in voting can vote. If they're not inspired to vote for the mayor, in a publicized election, stop counting them as potential voters for an NC member they never heard of. Not because the people don't like the NCs and not because they don't echo our positions, because they have no money for high profile campaigning.
How much did Antonio spend to grab that "mandate."?

September 19, 2006 5:20 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Incorrect, 5:20, also, painfully so, possibly by millions.

NCs also cannot discriminate against non-citizens (legal, illegal), or otherwise, in allowing stakeholders to vote.

Some NCs allow teens to vote, some do not have any minimum age. If a 12-year-old can make a mark/sign a name and pick a candidate, their vote must be counted in that NC.

Then there is the multiple-NC stakeholder factor. Stakeholder Y can live in one, work in another, own property in a third, be part of an eligible civic group in a fourth NC area, attend a church in still another, and so on.

That stakeholder is not even required to live in L.A. Their actual home could be in Torrance, unincorporated L.A. county, Orange County, or Guam, and they can still qualify under bylaws for most NCs.

One stakeholder could be a part of any number of NCs, voting in each, multiplying the "potential" for NC votes far beyond any "citizen of U.S., living in city of L.A." requirements that can vote for the mayor.

The number of potential stakeholder votes in this city of 4 million, could easily be 10 million or more, if all were informed, outreached to, and communicated with.

September 19, 2006 5:39 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Many comments here from people who haven't a clue about what these neighborhood councils are, who can take part, how they're structured. It's amazing, and some have been in operation for as long as 4 years, and have held 3 or more elections. But even posters here who say they support these councils, and are defending them, don't seem to know what exactly they are defending.

September 19, 2006 5:44 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

5:39 PM
Are you saying we have 10 million residents in this city? And all we know about is 4 million LEGAL citizens? Are you saying, as the expert you say you are and the Prop R spokesperson you hold youself up to be, and the MAV staffer everyone believes you are, that we have 6 MILLION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS?

Thank you for your service.

September 19, 2006 5:51 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Better not let Eli Broad or any of those other real estate barons in L.A. know this. They could end up being the president of every neighborhood council in the city, just by getting their local employees to vote.

Or those companies that run all the parking lots in the city.

September 19, 2006 5:52 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


No, 5:51, but many community colleges have remedial courses for people with poor reading skills.

Check them out.

A stakeholder doesn't have to be a citizen, doesn't have to be a resident (of the N.C. OR the city), doesn't have even spend any time here (they can own bare property, live in Idaho, and mail in their votes).

A stakeholder can also vote in as many NCs as they qualify for, no maximum -- 3, 6, 12.

Each situation multiplies potential NC votes to far, far beyond resident numbers. Illegal aliens are probably the smallest portion of that.

And I still don't like Villaraigosa, wouldn't work for him if I had to live on skidrow!

September 19, 2006 5:59 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Boy, some people hate AV so much they even drag him into fights he not a part of.

I think he may also be to blame for 9/11, just ask a blogger here.

September 19, 2006 6:01 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

You didn't answer. How many illegal immigrants are you (and you boss??)aware of.

September 19, 2006 6:03 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"A stakeholder can also vote in as many NCs as they qualify for, no maximum -- 3, 6, 12."

And how does one qualify for 12?

"A stakeholder doesn't have to be a citizen, doesn't have to be a resident (of the N.C. OR the city), doesn't have even spend any time here (they can own bare property, live in Idaho, and mail in their votes)."

You can own bare property, live in Idaho and vote for the LA Mayor, too. For someone who knows all about remedial reading courses, why don't you take one so you can read about local, statewide, and presidential election voter fraud?

September 19, 2006 6:15 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Who cares? The more the merrier.

Where I live, we call them "neighbors" -- and DONE calls them "STAKEHOLDERS."

They are ALL legitimate stakeholders, including the ones in YOUR neighborhood council area.

AND, they are each entitled to VOTE in NC elections, just like YOU.

This is according to the ruling of the CITY ATTORNEY (yes, the SAME city attorney that suggested City Council should not handle Prop R they way they did).

Now don't you want to go out and do more outreach, in light of his ruling? We should all obey our CITY ATTORNEY's rulings!

Your fellow stakeholders are being deprived of their votes, as we speak. Go GET 'em.

September 19, 2006 6:18 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

And how does one qualify for 12?

See 5:39 p.m., paragraph 4.

Already explained.

I am a legitimate stakeholder in 3 NCs (live in one, work in another, qualify based on a different criteria in a third). If I joined some group like the Jaycees in another adjoining NC area, that could be 4 legal (no fraud) legitimate votes.

DONE has classes for this, too. Get involved, start with one NC, while you get your bearings.

Most are worthwhile, just stay away from the sub-1-percenters (they don't want you anyway. . . you might suggest LOCAL agenda items, and that would tear them away from supplanting their city councilmembers).

September 19, 2006 6:26 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

And how does one qualify for 12?

September 19, 2006 6:30 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

6:30 PM

Easy. Live in one, work in another, qualify based on a different criteria in a third. Then buy 9 pink Harleys and park them in rental garages all over the city.

September 19, 2006 6:35 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The guy who owns strip malls all along Ventura Boulvard in the Valley qualifies as a stakeholder for as many NCs as he has holdings in.

The people who own and operate parking lots all over the city of L.A. probably qualify for 40, 50, maybe 60.

(Is this really so tough to figure out, or are you just that lonely tonight?)

The national news is on, go bother Katie Couric.

September 19, 2006 6:36 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Nine PT Cruisers will also work.

September 19, 2006 6:40 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Hell, Antonio qualifies in at least three (downtown, the mayors mansion, and his hilltoper in Eagle Rock).

September 19, 2006 6:42 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:



If the Clowncil was right in putting Prop R on ballot why didn't they allow the Ethics Commission to Review the proposal????

Why didn't the Clowncil advise Neighborhood Councils as stated in the City Charter?????? If you say they have no clout what were they afraid of???

Why did it cost us taxpayers $2,500,000 to put on ballot and yet that figure has been hidden???

If Rocky has over 500 lawyers in his office and he's suppose to represent the people why did Clowncil ask to transfer $26,000 from workerman's comp to pay outside lawyers to defend the Donner case????? (this case was to have it removed)


September 19, 2006 6:44 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The image of MAV in a PT cruiser going to vote in three NC council elections is comical.
They can't answer 6:44. Not without fudged statistics, name calling and accusations that Idaho owners of raw land are voting in the Valley Glen NC elections.

September 19, 2006 6:50 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"Live in one, work in another, qualify based on a different criteria in a third. Then buy 9 pink Harleys and park them in rental garages all over the city."


September 19, 2006 6:54 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Why is your focus on how it got on the ballot, and not on whether it's good or bad for the city??

Why are you stating emphatically that things are "stated in the city charter" without referencing the exact location of that provision... so other can see if that's actually the case.

Do you actually know this is in the charter, or did someone just send you an e-mail telling you it was, and you believed them, in blind faith.

If this is in the charter, and you can find the passage where it says specifically "City council must advise neighborhood councils before they place anything on the ballot for the citizens of the city to vote on directly" then please also find the wording that says exactly how far in advance they must do this (24 hours, 72 hours, 3 weeks, 9 months).

How long. Because there were NC people there speaking against it.

Why don't you release the caps lock and get a drink of water or something.

What we are now encountering, folks, is a form of NC-extremo-facism "the city CANNOT take issues directly to the people WITHOUT OUR APPROVAL."

Yikes. I'm getting scared, of what may come next.

Beheadings on Channel 35?

September 19, 2006 6:54 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

If the Straw Man is so concerned that the Neighborhood Councils don't speak for us, why is she or he even here? To tell we the people that they don't speak for us? Okay, you made your point. They don't and I still want the Clowncil members walking the plank. I'm still voting NO on Prop R.

September 19, 2006 7:00 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

It cost the city to put it back on the ballot, because people who represent no one in the city but their own interests, and like it that way - plus outsiders who have NO concern for the city of L.A. -- just their national "cause" took the city to court as individuals.

The council members, who were elected by the majority of the voters in the city - some of them more than once - where challenged by a small handful of NC people who were elected by a few dozen people in their own communities.


A FEW DOZEN there. . .

The city attorney was duty bound to the MAJORITY of the citizens of L.A., to stand up for what their duly elected officials ordered, even though a TINY MINORITY of people opposed it, aided by some out of towners.

That's how democracy works. If the majority BENDS OVER whenever a small number scream loud, then we all lose.

September 19, 2006 7:04 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Keep counting, that's three this week.

September 19, 2006 7:05 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Whaddya gonna do!

Blame the illegals, that safe.

September 19, 2006 7:15 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

City attorneys defend casess every day that it might be cheaper just to pay off, but then you have precedent. Everytime a small group of people cry foul and know how to file a law suit, you have to rewrite the ballot, or city code, or something.

When City Council votes, they vote with the mandated power behind them of the hundreds of thousands of voters that elected them. If they stop in their tracks everytime a dozen people scream they've been unfair, they defame the will of the hundreds of thousands who trusted them with the position.

September 19, 2006 7:18 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

No one is blaming them 7:15. Just trying to get you to back up your figure of 10 million LA residents with data. But you explained it. Idaho residents who own raw land in LA account for 5 million. And there are 1 million Harleys belonging to some strip mall owners on Ventura Blvd.

September 19, 2006 7:19 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

There is raw land in LA? Have they already started parceling off Griffith Park?

September 19, 2006 7:23 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

You sure this isn't personal for you? What does it matter if the NCs support term limits or not. Irrefutable fact: Voters around the country WANT term limits. Could there be a neighborhood council leader that got promoted to a position or commission you wanted? You expended such energy with this it is hard to believe you aren't paid or just working on revenge.

September 19, 2006 7:37 PM  

Blogger Zuma Dogg said:


It all looks so good, the part about "ethics/lobby reform" (even though an actual judge says he doesn't see how this puts ethics reform into lobbying, it sure looks good to voters.

However, you also say this: "A YES vote on Proposition R establishes a limit of three terms on City Councilmembers to reduce the power and influence of City Hall bureaucrats and lobbyists."

EXCUSE ME. The term is only TWO now. So thanks for raising/lengthening it to THREE terms, before you limit it. (Like Rocky said, "Confusing to voters.")

AND -- We all know the "ethics" part looks good to voters, which is why you mingled it with the focus group nightmare, "term LENGTHENING." So besides that one little fact, that we only get ethics, if you get lifetime health benefits and the additional financial perks of an additional term, you would've had me. But instead all you are doing is "holding ethics reform HOSTAGE to another agenda." (Thanks Mr. City Attorney. I was listening even though your clients were not.)


September 19, 2006 8:38 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Rocky looks like a big hypocrite. First he give his legal opinion on the record opposing Prop R, then he turns around hires the best legal team in the city to defeat it on our tax dollars. Anyone else see something wrong in that? You have two major newspapers attacking the clowncil members for their shameless dishonesty but its just the NC's who are opposing Prop R. Yeah right!!! Clowncil didn't give a shit about going through the process, they did what they wanted and shitted on all those concerned. Nice way to get support. The people posting here keep talking numbers and trying to compare with the electeds who had millions at their disposal to run their campaign and still barely had people vote in their district. Again, blame the NC's. We'll see who the media sides with once the campaign really gets geared up. The little people or the giant dishonest, sneaky, coneiving clowncil members.

September 19, 2006 9:52 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Daily News

CHALK up a victory for the Los Angeles City Council: The 2nd District Court of Appeal has ruled that although council members did all they could to make the wording of Measure R as ambiguous and unhelpful as possible, they didn't technically break the law.
And so, even though Measure R is designed to confuse, it gets to stay on the November ballot - treacherous language and all.

Way to go.

If voters knew what Measure R was all about - extending council members' time in office from two terms to three - they would strike it down overwhelmingly. Council members know this, which is why they've tried to disguise the measure with all sorts of political tricks.

One of those tricks: The council amended the ballot's questionable language from saying that Measure R "lengthened" council members' terms to noting only that it "changed" them.

Get it? That way, careless voters might not recognize Measure R as the assault on term limits that it is.

The first judge to look at the measure found this deception so offensive that he ordered the original language restored. But the city appealed, and the appellate court has ruled that although vague, the wording isn't illegal.

The council's description could have been "more complete, and thus more informative," the court observed, "by noting the measure increased the number of terms a council member could serve from two to three."

But, the judges added, "To comply with the election statutes, the ballot title need not be the `most accurate,' `most comprehensive,' or `fairest"' possible."

Nope, according to the court, anything short of an outright lie is apparently good enough.

Of course, the same class of people - self-serving politicians - write these laws, exploit them and interpret them, which may explain why the public is losing faith in government.

Fortunately, the people still have a say at the ballot box and can repudiate the cynical and deceitful games played by the council.

September 19, 2006 9:54 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

9:52 PM
Thanks for clearing it up. For me it's about term limits. I don't want the Clowncil to have that kind of job security. I don't want career Clowncil members. I want term limits. And I do not care who here has a personal gripe with a NC leader and who here keeps coming back to tell me I'm even more insignificant to our leaders than I already feel. I don't count, you don't count. We don't count. Some blowhole with a city hall staff job that I probably don't want him to have counts. And some nut with an agenda against the NCs count. I have no idea why this arrogant ass keeps coming back with information that serves one purpose--to make us change our minds by telling us there aren't enough of us to matter and so we will be defeated.

Read my lips "Genius." It is NO on R. And I don't care what your IQ score is asshole. It's still NO on R.

September 19, 2006 10:17 PM  

Anonymous Captain Jack Sparrow said:

Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen (tips hat and winks): I see that the sots at City Hall are busy tonight. Ye Gods! There IS a recurring pattern in all of this, and it's NOT just a battle for NC's. It's an epic battle between the common man and the machine. And the machine seems to think it has outgrown the common man. But it hasn't, savvy?

It is the common man who sets the pace at which the gears run and not the other way 'round.

Me mum used to tell me about the many, many tickles. For those sots who are dense, that's the writing on the wall. Since the sots don't seem to have ears, its the eyes that take it all in.

Those who are named to walk the plank are chosen based upon the lack of use of eyes, ears, hearts and souls. Actually, the august Senator Cedillo was added as a request by a common man or woman. And unlike the Prop R supporter, I heard the request and chose to give it the recognition it deserved.

Bloody hell. All the prop R supporters want is the recognition that their opinion, while different, is valid too.

Dgarzila, man - are you about? What say you about the straw man?


September 19, 2006 10:45 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

captain jack sparrow
"All the prop R supporters want is the recognition that their opinion, while different, is valid too."

Is that true? Isn't it one "supporter" and his troll? Blogging day and night that they are brilliant and everyone else is a dope? Are they in trouble for doing this. Because earlier someone posted that the Mayor was "pissed."?

September 19, 2006 10:56 PM  

Anonymous Captain Jack Sparrow said:

10:56 - Ah, you have rightly called out the Captain. Bravo!

(takes of hat and bows low) Even Captain Jack can be humbled by his crew. But about being pissed on by Villabarbosa, I can see where that could happen if one drinks too much rum and then goes on a long car ride to the Westside.

Me mum also used to say that brilliance is often a reflection of those that surround the lackluster. Trolls are lackluster, and the trollop, well....bugger the trollop. Or is that the troll's job, savvy?

September 19, 2006 11:04 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

MAV should be pissed. Damn pissed. Two people, one of them allegedly on his staff, the other a notorious online abuser, posting lies, name callng, and did you see the threat one of these nuts posted to ZD on Sunday morning? I hope the mayor is pissed. If this is how the Straw Man and the Troll obtain "recognition that their opinons are valid" we're in trouble. Hopefully the mayor knows better.

September 19, 2006 11:07 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"Or is that the troll's job, savvy?"

Well now, there's the question. Is it Karl Rove's job to lie to us? And what does that mean? I will feel sorry for him if Bush fires him for being an indescreet liar?

September 19, 2006 11:10 PM  

Anonymous Captain Jack Sparrow said:

11:07 - I did see that muck about Mr. Dogg. Bad form indeed. And you are right. Villabarbosa should be pissed, as he has given the fox entrance to the henhouse.

Any more booty ye care to give away, Villabarbosa? How 'bout some of that fine snuff you keep in the 2nd left drawer?

September 19, 2006 11:10 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Assuming the alleged staffer gets fired, even if he was doing his job, and the Troll......well the Troll is accustomed to public disgrace or so we hear......then maybe the next time some high level bureaucrat asks some low level bureaucrat to lie, cheat, abuse the constituents and threaten us......well maybe the next low level bureaurcrat will think about it and say 'NO WAY.'

That would be nice captain jack. What do you think? And I'm sure it's no picnic to work for Mayor Chicken. But my boss isn't exactly a doll, either.

September 19, 2006 11:15 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Antonio isn't an elitist. I imagine him riding around in an old silver PT Cruiser on the weekends. Down to earth. So I don't get how this is about the common man versus the machine. When did Antonio become the machine? I missed it.

September 20, 2006 12:22 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Mandate, schmandate! All of these elections - for mayor or for neighborhood council - are won by those who get the most votes from whoever bothers to show up and participate. Those who don't like those results get to stew in their own juices til the next opportunity. Deal with it.

It's fun to see some of you manipulating statistics to try to undo election results. And pathetic.

September 20, 2006 5:47 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Not as much fun as it is watching you manipulate what was posted to try covering the truth. MAV couldn't even get 300,000 votes in Los Angeles. Not exactly a crowd pleaser or the best choice for higher office. Now come back and spin it again.

September 20, 2006 8:43 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Whew, glad this is still about MAV.

I thought maybe someone was actually back on topic.

September 20, 2006 9:38 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Every one say it together now. . . Antonio sucks (and Mayor Sam endorsed him!)


September 20, 2006 9:38 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

4:01 ANOTHER Straw Man - see Al Gore NEVER SAID he invented the Internet -- He said he was "instrumental in drafting legislation that permitted the internet to develop in the way it has."

September 20, 2006 2:03 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Capt'n Jack

September 20, 2006 9:04 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Your best shot. You're slipping Troll. Captain has you ON THE RUN!

September 20, 2006 9:26 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Not her fault. Reportedly she has been told by the higher ups to quit it. Too much embarassment for MAV and Big F. But if history tells us anything, she's just too deranged to cold turkey it out.

I'm going to buy a new car tomorrow. That PT Cruiser is a gas hog. Any ideas?

September 20, 2006 9:48 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Ya buy a pink Harley.

September 20, 2006 10:49 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Don't any of you care why they want another term?

It is not for permanent health care, although that will be ever so nice for them.

They say it is because they will be unable to finish all which they wish to finish in two terms. And pray tell, what is that?

Let's see - more LACRA projects, urban villages, and smart growth contracts for their urban planner friends like Mott Smith and Jim Favaro? Likely it is also whatever they can do for their developer friends during the additional four years? Who do you suppose fills those war chests?

Doesn't anyone care that they have taken $26,000 of taxpayers money to fight a court case to keep a proposition on the ballot which gives them four more years of hugh salaries, war chest accumulation, a scadillion perks, and better health and pension benefits?

No, most of you just care about personal chatter on taxpayer time. Why don't all of you get back to work and earn your pay?

September 23, 2006 12:59 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home